Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LEE CONSERVANCY CATCHMENT BOARD BILL

THAMES CONSERVANCY BILL

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

DOVER HARBOUR BILL [Lords]

(King's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.)

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

As amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

PLYMOUTH EXTENSION BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) suspended—[The Chairman of Ways and Means] (King's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.)

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL (By Order)

Consideration of Lords Amendments deferred till Tomorrow.

PRIVATE BILLS

Standing Order 208 (Notice of Consideration of Lords Amendments) suspended until the Summer Adjournment:—As regards Private Bills to be returned by the House of Lords with Amendments, such Amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been returned from the Lords:—When Amendments thereto are intended to be proposed by the promoters, a copy of such Amendments to be deposited in the Private Bill Office, and Notice thereof given not later than the day before that on which the Amendments made by the House of Lords are proposed to be taken into consideration.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

CLYDE NAVIGATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Clyde Navigation," presented by Mr. McNeil; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 66.]

Oral Answers to Questions — LEASEHOLD COMMITTEE (REPORT)

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Attorney-General if he is yet able to state whether the Government intend to introduce legislation to extend leases now falling in pending more comprehensive legislation at a later date.

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Attorney-General if, pending implementation of the Leasehold Committee Final Report, he will introduce legislation to restrain, prevent or stay execution of judgments or orders for possession of leasehold premises which are based on the expiry of the terms of the leases of such premises.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): The whole matter is receiving the fullest consideration, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement as to the Government's proposals.

Mr. Donnelly: Will the Attorney-General convey to his noble Friend the fact that every day on which he and my right hon. and learned Friend deliberate another lease falls in and another home in my constituency is threatened? It is six weeks since the Government have had the Leasehold Committee's Report, and something should be said now.

The Attorney-General: As I said when my hon. Friend last asked me a question about this matter, the urgency of the problem is very fully understood, but the complications of dealing with it equitably by legislation are enormous. They are being very carefully weighed up by my noble Friend, and I can assure my hon. Friend that that study is being carried out with all possible expedition.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Would my right hon. and learned Friend consider setting up tribunals with power to stay executions in certain cases, and so reduce the amount of hardship being inflicted?

The Attorney-General: Proposals of that kind and of other kinds are receiving consideration.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind how far the Statute Book has been bedevilled by piece-meal and temporary legislation in regard to landlord and tenant, and will he further have in mind, in regard to the suggestion just made about tribunals, that the methods of the rent tribunals set up under the 1949 Act have not given universal satisfaction?

The Attorney-General: I agree with the hon. Member that the general law on this matter is in a very piece-meal state. So far as the position of rent tribunals is concerned, having regard to the very large number of cases that these tribunals have dealt with, I should have thought myself that it was fair to say that on the whole they have done a very satisfactory job.

Mr. Janner: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider making it clear that, if he cannot take immediate steps to stop the rot that is setting in, any proceedings which will be taken later will be retrospective in so far as it is possible to make them so?

Oral Answers to Questions — GROUND LEASES (DURATION)

Mr. Gibson: asked the Attorney-General how many ground leases of 21 years, or more, duration are registered with the Land Registry Office; how many transferred leases have been registered; and how many of these are due to run out during the next two years.

The Attorney-General: The information required cannot be extracted from the records of the Land Registry, and it is not part of the function of the Registry to compile such figures.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEGAL AID AND ADVICE (COMMITTEE)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Attorney-General whether the Lord Chancellor has yet appointed his Advisory Committee under Section 13 of the Legal Aid and Advice Act, 1949.

The Attorney-General: My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has appointed Sir George Aylwen to be Chairman of


the Advisory Committee and the Countess of Limerick, Miss Mabel Crout, Sir Luke Fawcett, Master Burnand, Mr. B. E. Astbury, Mr. A. Joseph Brayshaw, Mr. G. E. Haynes and Mr. S. H. Smith to be members. In addition to their statutory duties he has requested the Committee to advise him whether they consider the scheme which the Law Society have made under Section 8 of the Legal Aid and Advice Act, 1949, should have his approval.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does that answer mean that it is still the intention of the authorities concerned to secure the introduction of the scheme, within the limits already announced, by 1st October?

The Attorney-General: Yes, Sir. That is our hope.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say how many of the people whose names he has read out were members of the original Rushcliffe Committee on legal aid?

The Attorney-General: I could not say offhand. I have not got the details by me.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Sugar

Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Minister of Food whether he will now announce a date for the end of sugar rationing.

The Minister of Food (Mr. Maurice Webb): No, Sir.

Sir I. Fraser: But is it not time that the right hon. Gentleman did?

Retail Shops (Restrictions)

Mr. Black: asked the Minister of Food whether he will now remove the remaining restrictions on the opening of retail food shops.

Mr. Carr: asked the Minister of Food how soon he hopes to be able to relax the present restrictions on the granting of new licences for the sale of confectionery.

Mr. Webb: I do not think that I can remove these restrictions at present but,

as I have already said, they will be relaxed as soon as conditions permit.

Mr. Black: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that if he is anxious to bring down prices, as I am sure that he is, to increase the area of competition is the surest possible way of doing that?

Mr. Webb: So far as that is possible, I am all in favour of it, but in so far as we have to meet rations we must adhere to the licensing of retail confectioners and other suppliers of commodities.

Mr. Braine: As certain catering licences are now being given without reference to local food committees, as to whether or not local consumer need exists, what justification is there for continuing the rationing of food?

Mr. Webb: The position was changed in the matter of catering licences, because we took off the restriction on the 5s. limit. That altered the whole position. There are still restrictions on other commodities, and it is still necessary to retain licences.

Mr. Carr: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that his refusal to relax restrictions is due entirely to shortage of sugar and not due to the views of the Government on the structure of retail trade?

Mr. Webb: I think I can give that assurance.

Air Commodore Harvey: Is the Minister aware that his predecessor usually ignored the advice of local food officers, and will he bear in mind that note ought to be taken of their advice? Perhaps he will act on it.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Why not, in any case, allow these experiments, because if they succeed it will show that there is consumer need, whereas if they fail it will leave no hard feelings on the part of the applicants?

Mr. Webb: I am prepared to allow as many experiments as I feel, on balance, are likely to succeed, but I should not be prepared to allow one which I thought would prove unsuccessful.

Cocoa Buying

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: asked the Minister of Food when he proposes to relinquish the cocoa buying controls.

Mr. Webb: I hope to take a decision about this in the near future.

Mr. Cooper: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the profits to his Department on this controlled buying represent a form of indirect taxation in this industry, and will he take into account the fact that the present controls result in some uncertainty of supplies and also in high costs, which are resulting in unemployment in the industry?

Mr. Webb: Discussions on the matter are now being held with representatives of manufacturers and cocoa dealers. I am carefully considering their views. I am well aware of the need for an early decision on the matter.

Catering Establishments (Permits)

Mr. Spearman: asked the Minister of Food if he will withdraw Circular G.3339 RP/N, issued by his Department's Northern Region, authorising buying permits for seasonal establishments for the period 13th August to 7th October, 1950, to be allocated on the basis of meals served from 11th September to 5th November, 1949, and instead base these permits on meals served during the equivalent period last year, in order to avoid waste of time by hotel staffs and food offices in applying for and allocating supplementary permits.

Mr. Webb: I am afraid that this, at the moment, is not practicable, because the eight-week periods for which returns were made last year cannot, in the nature of things, coincide with this year's allocation periods; but I intend shortly to consider with the industry whether we can find a better method for the future.

Mr. Spearman: Does the Minister realise that we are very near the season when the population in the seaside resorts is, perhaps, trebled, and that this will mean an enormous increase in work both for the food offices and the hotels at a time when they are particularly hard pressed? Can he take some immediate action?

Mr. Webb: I am well aware of that The trouble is that I cannot divide 52 by 8; I should have to alter the whole system.

Civic Restaurants

Mr. Steward: asked the Minister of Food by what authority civic restaurant authorities are undertaking the preparation, cooking and serving of meals otherwise than in restaurant premises open to the general public.

Mr. Webb: This is done through the powers of the Civic Restaurants Act, under which civic restaurant authorities may
provide for the supply to the public of meals and refreshments and may carry on such activities as are reasonably incidental or ancillary to the services aforesaid.

Mr. Steward: Does the Minister consider that the Act he quoted gives the right to civil restaurant authorities to carry out catering for wedding receptions and private parties in the homes of private people?

Mr. Webb: I am advised that that is so, but if the hon. Gentleman has any ideas about a specific case perhaps he will submit them to me.

Jam (Fruit Content)

Mr. Douglas Marshall: asked the Minister of Food what percentage of pure fruits was contained in jam in July, 1939; and what is the percentage now.

Mr. Webb: As the reply contains many figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Marshall: Is not it a fact that before the war this percentage was 95 per cent., and that now it is below 40 per cent.? Is the Minister also aware of the fact that the soft fruit industry has had surpluses which it has not been able to get rid of, and will he consider giving more sugar to the fruit canning industry so that we can use up our home grown fruit?

Mr. Webb: The pre-war jam standards had no statutory force. They represented a voluntary agreement in the industry. I cannot give more sugar to the manufacturers at the moment. I wish I could. If the hon. Gentleman has any further doubts after having examined my answer, perhaps he would put down another Question.

Following is the table:


MINIMUM FRUIT CONTENT OF JAM AND MARMALADE


Description of Jam or Marmalade
Pre-war Full Fruit Standard and Fresh Fruit Standard of the Food Manufacturers' Federation
Pre-war Lower Fruit Standard of the Food Manufacturers' Federation
Current Minimum Standard as prescribed by S.R. & O. 1944 No. 842 as amended (a)


Percentage of fruit
Percentage of fruit
Percentage of fruit


(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)


Apple and Blackberry
40
(30/10)
20
40
(30/10)


Apple and Blackcurrant


Apple and Damson


Apple and Plum


Apple and Raspberry and/or Logan berry


Apple and Strawberry


Apple Jelly
40

20
40



Apricot
40

20
40



Apricot and Peach
40
(20/20)
20
40
(20/20)


Bilberry
—

—
40



Blackberry (or Bramble) and Black-berry (or Bramble) Seedless or Jelly
38

20
38



Blackcurrant and Blackcurrant Jelly
30

20
22



Cherry
45

20
40



Damson and Damson Jelly
38

20
38



Elderberry Jelly and Elderberry Seed less
—

—
40



Gooseberry
35

20
30



Greengage
40

20
38



Loganberry
38

20
25



Peach and Mixtures of Peach with Citrus Fruit
40

20
40



Pineapple
—

—
40



Plum and Plum Jelly
40

20
40



Plum and Blackcurrant
40
(30/10)
20
40
(30/10)


Plum and Raspberry
40
(30/10)
20
40
(30/10)


Plum and Strawberry
40
(30/10)
20
40
(30/10)


Quince Jelly
—

—
40



Raspberry and Raspberry Seedless or Jelly
38

20
25



Raspberry and Gooseberry
40

20
30
(15/15)


Raspberry and Loganberry
—

—
25
(15/10)


Raspberry and Redcurrant
40

20
30
(15/15)


Redcurrant Jelly
35

20
35



Rhubarb
45

20
40



Rhubarb and Blackberry
40
(30/10)
20
40
(30/10)


Rhubarb and Raspberry
40
(30/10)
20
40
(30/10)


Strawberry
42

20
37½



Strawberry and Gooseberry
40

20
35
(17½/17½)


All other jams
40

20
40



Marmalade
Not specified
Not specified
20


Marmalade Special Standard (Coarse Cut)
30


Marmalade Special Standard (Jelly)
20


Marmalade Special Standard (Grape-fruit)
25


NOTE.—Where figures in brackets are specified in the second and fourth columns above in respect of a description of jam containing more than one variety of fruit, the first figure denotes the content of the variety of fruit first mentioned in such description, and the second figure denotes the total content of the other varieties of fruit mentioned in such description.


a) S.R. & O. 1946 Nos. 157 and 1221; S.I. 1949 No. 1893; S.I. 1950 No. 1056.

Mr. Macdonald: asked the Minister of Food when he proposes to increase the percentage of fruit content of jams.

Mr. Webb: I recently made an Order to raise the minimum fruit content of some soft fruit jams. It will come into force on 25th September for sales by manufacturers, and, at dates to be fixed later, for sales by wholesale and by retail.

Mr. Macdonald: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what will be the new percentage as from September?

Mr. Webb: Not without notice.

Mr. Hurd: Can the Minister say whether there is any rule which prevents jam manufacturers from using pure fruit and sugar, and nothing else?

Mr. Webb: Offhand, I do not know of any.

Canned Brisling

Miss Irene Ward: asked the Minister of Food what representations he has now received from the herring canning industry protesting against the advertising campaign in favour of imported canned brisling; and what action he proposes to take.

Mr. Boothby: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that the herring canners in this country have protested against the advertising by his Department of imported canned brisling; and whether he will now put a stop to it.

Mr. Webb: I have received representations from the chairman of the canning section of the Food Manufacturers Federation and from the Herring Industry Board. I propose to say in my reply that this campaign is for "brislings" in general, not just "imported brislings." It will, therefore, benefit home canners of brislings and also of sild, which are baby herrings. The home canned herring industry will also benefit to some extent because the advertising will remind housewives of the usefulness of all kinds of canned fish at this time of year. The purpose of this brief campaign is to encourage the sale of merchandise already bought by my Department. We obviously cannot undertake campaigns at public expense solely to increase the sale of goods in private hands—that is a matter for

private enterprise—but my Department takes every opportunity to emphasise the merits of fish.

Miss Ward: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that that answer will be received with great condemnation by the Herring Industry Board and the herring canners? Does he really feel that to use the taxpayers' money to subsidise, in the main, imported brislings as against the product of our own herring fisheries, is very helpful to those men who risked their lives for us during the war in minesweepers and the like?

Mr. Webb: In view of the recent mistakes which the Board made about my Department, I await their reproof with calm.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Is it the Minister's view that when his Department buys too much of any commodity it should be subsidised by the taxpayer to get rid of it at the expense of the home producer?

Eggs

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Food what is the average period elapsing between the laying of an egg and the retail sale of that egg.

Mr. Webb: A fair average time would be about 2½ weeks.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that, before the war, there were a large number of eggs sold as newly laid, which meant less than seven days old, and is he not aware that the figure he has given to the House indicates that there has been an increase of time between the hen and the consumer, with generally disastrous effects on the egg?

Mr. Webb: I recall some of these eggs; the smell lingers in my nostrils even now. The point is that, short of having an inspector to watch every hen, I cannot guarantee that every egg we sell is, in fact, newly laid. The point we have to concern ourselves with is collection, and, as has already been said, the average time taken between the point of collection and sale is between seven and nine days.

Mr. Baldwin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the fault does not lie with the hen and that it is not necessary to have an inspector to watch every hen?


The fault is in the time taken between the packing station and the consumer, and not between the hen and the packing station.

Sir William Darling: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider licensing the primary producers in cases where they give an undertaking to supply the consumer direct?

Mr. Webb: If hon. Members on the other side want to go back on the marketing schemes, for the introduction of which they claim credit, that is another matter altogether.

Mr. Nabarro: Can the Minister say how he reconciles the period of between seven and nine days with the fact that eggs in increasing number are going to the grocers in a rotten, green and maggotty condition?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered dealing with the matter by increasing the frequency of collection? Is he not aware that a very considerable part of the egg's life is spent before collection?

Mr. Webb: I think that is getting the thing down to sensible proportions. Bad eggs are no new phenomenon at all; they have always been part of our civilisation. If we could have some practical proposal to meet the requirements of the marketing scheme, with which hon. Members opposite would agree, and which would improve collection, I should be glad to consider it and do my best to carry it out.

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Food what quantities of eggs he has so far received from the Colonial Development Corporation's poultry project in the Gambia; and if they are now being distributed to consumers in this country.

Mr. Webb: None so far, except for a small experimental shipment last year.

Mr. Hard: This must be a great disappointment to the right hon. Gentleman. Was it not stated during the Colonial Affairs Debate that we were going to get some of these eggs in June?

Mr. Webb: I have no idea what the assurances were. We are examining a claim made that they are able to supply us with a reasonable quantity of eggs. We are going into negotiations; if they

can supply eggs at a reasonable price we are prepared to take them.

Mr. Nabarro: Can the Minister say whether they will arrive in the United Kingdom less than two and a half weeks' old, and, if not, what steps he will take to prevent their deterioration to the musty standards of our home-produced eggs?

Private Slaughterhouses

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: asked the Minister of Food what arrangements he proposes for the reopening of suitable private slaughter houses to facilitate the handling and conditioning of the anticipated extra cattle and sheep during the peak kill.

Mr. Webb: This problem will be considered by the seven area advisory committees which have been set up to advise about these Autumn arrangements. These committees represent the meat trade, the farmers' unions and the slaughtering industry. I am confident they will provide adequate plans.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Does the Minister expect to receive proposals from these bodies very shortly?

Mr. Webb: Yes, Sir.

Meat

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Food if he has considered a case, of which details have been sent to him, in which a member of the public, after obtaining the weekly ration of meat on Saturday, 15th July, found it totally unfit for human consumption by Sunday, 16th July; if he will allow a free supplementary meat ration this week and what action he will take to correct this situation generally.

Mr. Webb: As the information sent to me by the hon. Member is not adequate, I would be glad if he could let me have further details. In general, we are prepared to replace any meat which has been condemned in a butcher's shop soon after delivery, but it would obviously be impracticable for us to undertake to replace meat after it has been sold to the consumer. We naturally expect the butcher to protect his customers by not selling meat unfit for consumption.

Mr. Bossom: Is the Minister aware that this case concerns a very good butcher, who had to sell the meat he had delivered to him? Will he make it a rule that where butchers have to sell the meat which is delivered to them he will replace it if it is not good?

Mr. Webb: On the general position, I do not think I can go beyond what I have said. In this particular case, I would like to see the facts and see if there is anything that can be done to meet them.

Sir T. Moore: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that when I showed him a sample of bad butter, a short time ago, he destroyed it on his premises, so that I could not produce any evidence in this House against him?

Mr. Vosper: asked the Minister of Food to what extent retail butchers are compelled to accept allocations of manufacturing meat of a quality suitable only for factory use.

Mr. Webb: The manufacturing meat which we allocate to retail butchers is of a quality suitable for them to use in making meat products; and if a butcher does not wish to use his allocation himself he can arrange to have it made up for him by a manufacturer.

Mr. Vosper: Would the Minister give an assurance that if a butcher cannot use the meat he can get authority for canning it?

Colonel Ropner: asked the Minister of Food why the supply of fresh home-killed meat to the butchers of Tadcaster has been stopped.

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Food why he has recently refused to allocate fresh home-killed meat to certain districts in Yorkshire.

Mr. Webb: The butchers concerned have refused to take fresh beef offals. This means that we cannot allocate stock to that district for slaughter, since there are serious practical difficulties in moving the offals to other areas.

Colonel Ropner: By what authority does the right hon. Gentleman's Department deny home killed beef to butchers who refuse to take the offal which they cannot sell except at a very serious loss?

Mr. Webb: The trouble is that cows contain not only beef but offal, and we have to take some account of the economic value of the whole animal. If we have to send the offal to another district, we should, because of the very delicate nature of offal, make a loss; and, therefore, we have had to insist, since these butchers would not take offal, to reduce the supply of beef in order to have a fair arrangement for the distribution of these cattle.

Colonel Ropner: But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that butchers cannot sell the offal at present prices?

Mr. Walter Fletcher: Does the right hon. Gentleman's reply mean that his Department supplies beef from cows only?

New Zealand Produce (Prices)

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of Food what progress has been made in the negotiations with New Zealand over the price to be paid for butter, cheese and meat.

Mr. Webb: I cannot yet make a statement about butter and cheese. On meat, we have agreed with the New Zealand authorities to postpone negotiations about prices for next season's production until September.

Mr. Russell: Does that mean that everything is satisfactory in our relations with New Zealand over these three commodities?

Mr. Webb: That is my hope.

Wines (Government Purchases)

Mr. George Jeger: asked the Minister of Food if he has now disposed of all his purchases of wines.

Mr. Webb: Yes, Sir, and I am pleased to say that the completed accounts show that, on the whole transaction, after meeting all expenses, my Department has made a profit of £75,901 on Algerian wine and £19,000 on Italian wine. With permission, I will circulate the details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Jeger: Will my right hon. Friend bring these very satisfactory facts to the attention of the Conservative Party for use as speakers' notes, and also bring them to the attention of radio and music-hall comedians?

Commander Noble: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this Question came as a complete surprise to him?

Sir W. Darling: Does the Minister's answer take account of the Algerian wine sold to the Kitchen Committee?

Wine
Quantity
C.I.F. cost
Landing, housing, storing and agent's commission
Total cost
Proceeds of sales
Profit



Gallons
£
£
£
£
£


Algerian
1,579,854 (a)
381,345 (c)
104,640
485,985
561,886
75,901


Italian including Marsala
128,154(b)
140,478
13,292
153,770
172,770
19,000


Total, all wines
1,708,008
521,823
117,932
639,755
734,656
94,901


NOTE.—(a) Including 531,656 gallons sold to Germany.


(b) Including 62,154 gallons of Marsala.


(c) The wine was bought at many different prices over the period.

Flour Extraction Rate

Wing Commander Bullus: asked the Minister of Food when he contemplates a reduction in the extraction rate of flour from wheat in order to provide a whiter loaf.

Dr. Barnett Stross: asked the Minister of Food whether he now has any statement to make on the flour extraction rate.

Mr. Webb: We have decided to reduce to 80 per cent. the extraction rate of flour used for the national loaf. This will be made up of home-milled national flour with a rate of 81 per cent., and a proportion of imported flour with a lower rate. This change, which will take effect on Sunday, 27th August, will enable the public to get a whiter and more generally acceptable loaf, while still meeting the standards recommended by the Post-War Loaf Conference. It will also add to the quality and quantity of our supplies of animal feedingstuffs.

Wing Commander Bullus: Does the Minister hold out any immediate prospect of a return to the 1939 standard, which was a little better than that announced now?

Mr. Webb: Let us take one step at a time.

Dr. Stross: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the 85 per cent. extraction

Mr. Webb: It takes account even of that Algerian wine.

Mr. Henry Strauss: Was the right hon. Gentleman's Department moved by the profit motive?

Following are the details:

rate, together with the high consumption of liquid milk, was responsible in the main for the continuously improving conditions in the health of the nation, and will he tell the House now that he does not contemplate any further degradation of that standard?

Mr. Webb: This is our decision, and on it we stand. We have decided that it was possible to reduce the extraction rate at this point because of the high nutritional value of the extra amounts of other kinds of food which we are now able to supply.

Captain Ryder: Does this extraction rate have any connection with the rates mentioned in the previous Question, which is to be answered non-orally?

Mr. Somerville Hastings: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, if national conditions make it desirable that we should go back to the previous rate of extraction, that can be carried out in a reasonable time, and, if so, how long?

Mr. Webb: If it ever were necessary to go back on any decision of this nature, I should imagine that we could do the job within a week.

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Food what is the iron content of wheaten flour at the rates of extraction 85 per cent., 80 per cent. and 72 per cent.

Mr. Webb: This depends on the grists, that is, the mixtures of wheat. But


typical figures for 85, 80 and 72 per cent. extraction rates are 2.1, 1.65, and 1.25 milligrams per 100 grams of flour.

Dr. Stross: In view of that answer, does not my right hon. Friend realise that a degradation down to 72 per cent. would bring with it a very serious risk of imposing anaemia on a national scale on the people of this country?

Mr. Webb: We are not proposing to go down to 72 per cent.; the proposal is 80 per cent.

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Food how much wheat is imported as flour; from which countries; and what is the rate of extraction.

Mr. Webb: In the 12 months ended 30th June, 1950, the quantities of flour imported were about 49,000 tons from Australia, 80,000 from the United States, and 374,000 from Canada. The extraction rate in the first two cases was 72 per cent., and, in the third, 72.58 per cent. The total quantity of wheat represented by these imports of flour was about 700,000 tons.

Dr. Stross: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that wheat of low extraction rate will be used only for cakes and biscuits, and not for making bread, etc.? Can he also assure the public by advertisement that wholemeal bread is freely available and is subsidised in the same way as the other flour?

Mr. Webb: I have already said that the new national flour will balance the extraction rate of home milled flour with this low extraction rate from outside, and will make it 80 per cent. Outside that the extraction rate of 72 per cent. will go to cake and biscuit manufacturers for export.

Sir H. Williams: Can the Minister say whether the people of the United States are suffering from the diseases anticipated by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross)?

Tea Ration

Wing Commander Bullus: asked the Minister of Food when he expects to increase the tea ration.

Mr. Webb: I am afraid that an early increase is unlikely.

Wing Commander Bullus: Can the Minister say when tea purchases will be returned to private hands?

Mr. Webb: That is another question.

Egg Substitute

Mr. Braine: asked the Minister of Food from what countries animal blood plasma used as a substitute for eggs is imported; what tests are made to ensure its fitness for human consumption; and whether he is satisfied that the slaughtering of animals for this purpose is carried out under proper supervision.

Mr. Webb: Imports so far have come from Denmark only, but small quantities are also expected from Holland later in the year. A veterinary certificate that the product is derived from healthy animals and that slaughtering was carried out under proper supervision, must accompany all consignments, and this stipulation is most stringently applied.

Bread Deliveries

Mr. Bell: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that since the recent increase in the petrol duty deliveries of bread are being suspended in some country districts; and what action he proposes to take.

Mr. Webb: I have not heard of any suspended deliveries of this sort.

Mr. Bell: Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that the maintenance of a single price for the whole country without the right to charge for delivery will result in many country bakers failing to make daily journeys?

Mr. Webb: We do, in fact, review the bread subsidy payments and such a review has recently taken place. In that review account was taken of the increased cost of delivery owing to increased petrol prices.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Signposts

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that one of the faults of the present signposting of roads is that a signpost to a town or village is often followed at the next road junction by a signpost which omits that


town or village, or by no signpost at all; and whether he will correct this fault on his own roads and request highway authorities to do so on theirs.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): Yes, Sir, and I am dealing with this in the general improvement of traffic signs on trunk roads. This fault is dealt with fully in the traffic signs reports, which I brought to the notice of highway authorities on publication.

Prestwick Airport

Sir T. Moore: asked the Minister of Transport what action he proposes to take in regard to the representations made to him by the Ayr County Council and others for establishing suitable safety arrangements along trunk road A 77, adjacent to Prestwick Airport.

Mr. Barnes: I have approved warning signs on the trunk road near the airport, and they will shortly be erected. Arrangements are already in force to control road traffic while aircraft are passing over the road at low altitude.

Sir T. Moore: Is this recklessly rapid decision, after five months' delay, by any chance due to the fact that this Question appears on the Order Paper?

Mr. Barnes: If it is, it justifies Parliamentary action.

Wooden Blocks

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Minister of Transport what power he has to prevent the relaying of wooden blocks as a road surface.

Mr. Barnes: I can withhold permits under Defence Regulation 55 for the timber required for new wood block paving, but I have no power to prevent the re-laying of secondhand blocks. Apart from this, I can only influence local highway authorities by way of advice, and, to a limited extent, through the administration of Road Fund grants.

Mr. Shepherd: Cannot the Minister extend his advice somewhat, because there is not much purpose in spending thousands of pounds in safety campaigns if lethal surfaces, such as road blocks, are allowed to continue?

Mr. Barnes: We are making rapid progress in this connection. In the main,

wood blocks are confined to London streets, and, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, on many of the roads being relaid in Westminster they are being done away with. I think we are making good progress.

Speed Limit, Castle Bromwich

Sir John Mellor: asked the Minister of Transport if he has now come to a decision regarding a speed limit upon the trunk road through Castle Bromwich.

Mr. Barnes: In view of the fact that accidents on this road show a tendency to increase, I have decided to impose a speed limit on the section from School Lane to Hurst Lane. I am having other methods to improve safety on this road examined, and will review the matter at a later date, as I am not entirely convinced that a speed limit is the best or the right remedy.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Motor Vehicles (Regulations)

Sir Wavell Wakefield: asked the Minister of Transport why there is no explanatory note on S.I. 1950, No. 963, Motor Vehicles Construction and Use (Amendment No. 2) Regulations, 1950.

Mr. Barnes: It is not the practice to append an explanatory note to a Statutory Instrument the purpose and effect of which are readily apparent, as in this case.

Sir W. Wakefield: Is the Minister aware that this Question would not have been put down if the meaning of this Statutory Instrument were apparent from straightforward reading? Nobody reading this Statutory Instrument could possibly know what it was about without turning up a lot of back references. Surely the whole purpose of an explanatory note is to make that unnecessary?

Mr. Barnes: I should have thought that paragraph 2 was extremely plain and clear.

Sir W. Wakefield: Paragraph 2 revokes certain things, but does not state clearly what the action is.

Bridge, Selby

Colonel Ropner: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has now reached an agreement with the Railway Executive in order that the work of reconstructing the Park Street Bridge at Selby may be begun.

Mr. Barnes: I hope that the formal agreement with the Railway Executive for reconstructing the bridge will be completed in a few days' time.

Colonel Ropner: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that I first drew his attention to this matter as long ago as October, 1946? Can he say why there has been this appalling waste of time in dealing with the matter and, further, why the people of Selby should suffer this inconvenience in addition to that of the toll bridge?

Mr. Barnes: There has not been an appalling waste of time. This is a very difficult and complex problem, and negotiations have to take place. There are many other schemes, equally vital, which are being postponed altogether throughout the country.

Kennet-Avon Canal

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Transport what action he is taking within his powers under the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, in regard to the Reading-Newbury section of the Kennet and Avon Canal.

Mr. Hollis: asked the Minister of Transport whether under the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, he will call for a report on the threatened closing of the Kennet-Avon canal.

Mr. Barnes: The Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, gives me no power either to prevent the closing of this canal or to require it to be re-opened. This is a matter for the British Transport Commission subject to any statutory obligations resting upon them. As the hon. Members have been informed, the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive have the matter under consideration.

Mr. Hurd: Does the Minister's answer mean that the British Transport Commission can abandon this section of the Kennet and Avon canal without Consulting the Minister or Parliament, or without seeking any representations from the people affected?

Mr. Barnes: I should not like to say that they could just abandon it offhand, but certainly if the banks are dangerous or the cost is excessive, then the question of the future of the canal will come under consideration.

Mr. Hollis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, first, that if it has not been abandoned off hand, in point of fact a large sum of money has been spent recently in building new gates at Wootton Rivers? Secondly, is he aware that if there is no power given him under the Act to close or keep open canals, it does give him power to do what I asked in my Question—to call for a report? Will he deal with that question?

Mr. Barnes: I think the best plan is to wait until the Inland Waterways and Docks Executive, whose duty it is to consider these matters, have had the position thoroughly under consideration. I propose to await their report before I commit myself to any decision.

Mr. Hurd: What will happen, meanwhile, to the livelihood of the canal carriers?

Mr. Barnes: It should not prevent that from continuing. It will go on—

Mr. Hurd: No.

Mr. Barnes: If it does not, then that matter must be suspended until this investigation is completed.

Mr. Hollis: Do I take it that the right hon. Gentleman will await the report, but is not willing to call for one? Is that the position?

Mr. Barnes: Yes.

Motor Service, Hawsker

Mr. Spearman: asked the Minister of Transport if he will now arrange for the Traffic Commissioners to reply to the application made by the Heather Motor Services in May to run an experimental service from the 26th June to the 18th September along the Low Laithes Road, Hawsker, near Whitby, in view of the severe inconvenience it is causing the people of Hawsker not to have this service.

Mr. Barnes: There has been no delay on the part of the licensing authority in dealing with this application. I am informed that it was received on 2nd June


and published in the next issue of their "Notices and Proceedings" on 16th June. On being amended by the applicant it was published again in the next issue on 30th June. It is to be heard at a public sitting on 27th July, and the applicant was so informed on 18th July.

Mr. Spearman: Can the right hon. Gentleman arrange matters so that it will not be two or three months before transport is available for the villages?

Mr. Barnes: That is not the Question. The hon. Member asked me to look into the delay, and I have given him the dates to show there has been no delay.

Mr. Spearman: But I also asked him if he would also see that these delays shall not occur.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL SITUATION (PARLIAMENTARY RECESS)

Mr. S. O. Davies: asked the Prime Minister if, in view of Mr. Truman's official declaration on 19th July with regard to the war in Korea, he will reconsider his proposal to adjourn Parliament for two and a half months and agree to its being kept in constant session during the present crisis; and if he will take the people of our country into his confidence by frankly informing them that the Government are aware of no means of protecting them against atom bombs and bacteriological warfare.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): No, Sir.

Mr. Davies: Is not my right hon. Friend aware how thoroughly alarmed the people of our country are at the fact that we are becoming more and more deeply involved in the Korean crisis, with the possibility of a world war? Regarding the latter part of my Question, will he tell me whether he himself has any confidence in the so-called Civil Defence Regulations which have been submitted to the people of this country?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend seems to be anticipating this afternoon's Debate.

Mr. Martin Lindsay: Is the Prime Minister aware that people are saying

that the international situation cannot be so serious as it would seem, otherwise Parliament would not be closing for two and a half months? Does he not think it most unfortunate that we should give that impression?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I am sure that people who follow our proceedings intelligently realise that there is power to recall Parliament at any time.

Oral Answers to Questions — U.S. ARMED FORCES, GREAT BRITAIN

Mr. S. O. Davies: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement giving details as to the strength and nature of equipment of foreign Armed Forces now on British soil.

The Prime Minister: The only foreign Armed Forces in this country are American. There are about 1,500 United States naval personnel in this country (including the Headquarters of the Commander-in-Chief, United States Naval Forces, Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean) and about 10,000 United States Air Force personnel, comprising three medium bomber groups, with headquarters and administrative units. These Forces are equipped with about 180 aircraft.

Mr. Davies: It was rather difficult to hear all the latter part of the Prime Minister's reply, because of the deliberate rowdiness on the other side of the House. Will the Prime Minister give details of the nature of the equipment, particularly of the American air squadrons, that are stationed in this country?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I am not prepared to give more information than I have given to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Fitzroy Maclean: Is it not a fact that the Argentinian forces on Deception Island are armed and is not that British soil?

Mr. Davies: Will my right hon. Friend inform me how it is that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) appears to be in the absolute confidence of the Government, and reveals all the information he gets when he is making his frightful speeches?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member cannot ask questions about the right hon.


Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill). He must ask the Government questions about matters for which they are responsible, and nothing else.

Mr. Cocks: Is it not better to have allied Armed Forces in this country than enemy armed forces?

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE (ECONOMIC RESOURCES)

Mr. S. O. Davies: asked the Prime Minister, having regard to Mr. Truman's official declaration on 19th July, to what extent the Government proposes to divert our economic resources to defence purposes.

The Prime Minister: This is not a matter which can appropriately be dealt with by Question and answer. I suggest that my hon. Friend should await the Debate later this week.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Are the Government keeping in mind the fact that the more we adopt a guns before butter policy the more we are likely to create Communism in this country?

Oral Answers to Questions — FESTIVAL OF BRTTAES

Mr. Bossom: asked the Lord President of the Council if he has personally visited the site of the 1951 Exhibition on the South Bank of the Thames, accompanied by a traffic expert; and if he is satisfied that adequate arrangements have been made to receive the number of visitors expected without undue congestion.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I am well aware through my visits to the South Bank Exhibition site of the many problems of transport and traffic control and of circulation inside the Exhibition itself which will arise. Under instructions which I gave a long time ago, these problems have been exhaustively studied by the transport, traffic and Exhibition authorities with the best available advice, and I can assure the House that no means of reducing congestion is being neglected. I cannot, however, promise that some congestion will not occur. Obviously, with an event on this scale, some congestion is inevitable.

Mr. Bossom: Does not the Lord President realise that if the congestion becomes serious it might really become quite a catastrophe for the Exhibition? Will he look into it again, as people who are informed about this matter are very agitated about it?

Mr. Morrison: We cannot have great events without some degree of disturbance which, I am sure, the people of London and others, will stand. I can assure the hon. Member that I am fully aware of all the possibilities, and that I am watching the matter day by day.

Mr. W. Robson-Brown: Will the Lord President have prepared for the consideration of the House either a small-scale model or a plan, so that we can see how these traffic arrangements are to be carried out? We are all anxious that the Festival should be a success, and interruption by traffic would be a serious matter.

Mr. Morrison: I will consider that.

Sir H. Williams: Will the Lord President say what we shall see when we get to the Exhibition?

Mr. Morrison: That is a new, irrelevant and typically irresponsible question.

Mr. W. Fletcher: Has the right hon. Gentleman sent anybody to France to study how the French handle the problem at their great exhibitions?

Mr. Morrison: If I may say so, the Metropolitan Police are not inexperienced in this matter.

Sir H. Williams: As certain industries have not the faintest idea what they have to supply to the Exhibition, would the right hon. Gentleman still say that what I asked him was irrelevant?

Mr. Speaker: I understood that the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question asked what was to be seen at the Exhibition. The main Question applied only to traffic, I thought.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALBANIA (BRITISH CLAIM)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the conversations between representatives of His Majesty's Government and the Government of Albania on the


subject of the means of payment to be adopted by Albania of the damages awarded against her by The Hague Court by reason of her mining of His Majesty's ships in the Corfu Channel, have yet been concluded; and when payments will be made.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ernest Davies): A third discussion took place in Paris on 17th July. It was inconclusive, but the Albanian delegate was pressed hard to put forward concrete proposals. He was told that failure to do so would compel His Majesty's Government to doubt the Albanian Government's good faith. It is expected that a further meeting will take place shortly.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the Minister say what will happen if the further meeting is equally inconclusive?

Mr. Davies: In that event, we should have to consider turning to other remedies.

Mr. Pickthorn: Does the Under-Secretary's original answer mean that, so far, there has been no practical proposal of any sort made by either side?

Mr. Davies: Inasmuch as the discussions have not brought forth any result, as yet, the answer to that question would obviously be "No."

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA

Treaty

Mr. Fitzroy Maclean: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how far the Sino-British Treaty of 1943 is still in force.

Mr. Ernest Davies: The Sino-British Treaty of 1943 for the Relinquishment of Extra-Territorial Rights in China is still in force in its entirety. In the absence of any agreement between the two contracting parties to terminate it or to modify its provisions, its validity is in no way open to question.

Mr. F. Maclean: Has it not been denounced by the Chinese Communist Government?

Mr. Davies: No, Sir. The treaty has not been denounced by the Chinese Communist Government.

Broadcasting

Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what information on His Majesty's Government's policy toward Communist China he has given to the British Broadcasting Corporation for their overseas programmes.

Mr. Ernest Davies: The overseas services of the British Broadcasting Corporation are in touch with the Foreign Office over this as over other aspects of foreign affairs. Steps have been taken to ensure that they are aware of the policy of His Majesty's Government towards the People's Republic of China.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Could the hon. Gentleman tell us how often they are given guidance, because in these very critical days constant guidance is needed in respect of these overseas propaganda services of the B.B.C.?

Mr. Davies: Guidance is given as often as it is considered necessary. Foreign Office personnel are in close touch with personnel of the B.B.C. There is communication—personal, by telephone and in other ways—and I can assure hon. Members that there is very close liaison on this matter.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Are the home programmes of the B.B.C. linked with Hong Kong and other stations?

Mr. Davies: I should want notice of that question.

Mr. Profumo: Is the Minister aware that his answer is a classical piece of official humbug? The B.B.C. cannot be expected to do their job properly so long as His Majesty's Government have no clear policy with regard to Communist China.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN DELEGATIONS

Mr. Bossom: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will publish in the first issue of the OFFICIAL REPORT each month a complete list of all official delegations of foreign visitors invited to this country, stating the dates of their arrival and how they can be contacted.

Mr. Ernest Davies: No, Sir. I am unable to give such an undertaking.

Mr. Bossom: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the taxpayers pay for these visits of foreign delegations that come to this country? Why cannot Members know who are coming? Why cannot he publish a list, so that we know who are coming and how we can contact them?

Mr. Davies: In the first place, it is not true that the taxpayer pays for all these delegations. Some come at the invitation of other organisations, or are paid for by their respective Governments. If the work which would be involved were undertaken, it would involve the taxpayer in a considerable amount of money, as far as obtaining the information was concerned.

Major Legge-Bourke: Who is paying for the 71 Japanese at present visiting this country?

Mr. Bossom: Would the Minister not give a list of those for which the taxpayers are paying, so that we can contact them when they arrive?

Mr. Davies: No, Sir. This question has been very carefully considered. It is not considered that any useful purpose would be served by giving the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Oral Answers to Questions — BACKWARD TERRITORIES (U.N.O. FUND)

Mr. Thomas Reid: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what contributions have been made by Communist ruled States to the fund of $20,000,000 raised by the United Nations Organisation for the development of backward territories.

Mr. Ernest Davies: The Yugoslav Government have promised to make a contribution of 2½ million dinars, which is the equivalent of some $50,000. No other Communist Government has offered to contribute to this Fund.

Oral Answers to Questions — KOREA

North Korean Government

Major Tufton Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will describe the machinery through which he has diplomatic contact with the

North Korean Government; who is the head of that Government; and where it is situated.

Mr. Ernest Davies: His Majesty's Government have no direct diplomatic contact with the North Korea administration, the head of which is Kim Il-sung. We have no reason to believe that the seat of this Administration has been moved from Pyongyang.

French and Swedish Aid

Mr. Thomas Reid: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Governments of France and Sweden have promised military or other aid against North Korea to the United Nations organisation.

Mr. Ernest Davies: The French Government have placed one naval vessel at the disposal of the United Nations unified command in Korea. The Swedish Government have notified the Secretary-General of their inability to provide military assistance but are, I understand, offering a field hospital.

Mr. Reid: May I ask my hon. Friend whether the Swedish Government intend to contribute financially, if they cannot contribute militarily?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH EMBASSY, MEXICO CITY

Mr. Peter Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps are being taken to provide a residence for His Majesty's Ambassador at Mexico City.

Mr. Ernest Davies: We are at present trying to obtain a suitable residence for His Majesty's Ambassador, but nothing satisfactory has so far been found.

Mr. Smithers: In view of the fact that in Montezuma's historic capital tradition is much appreciated, will the Minister consider not "obtaining" a residence but building one to the designs of a British architect?

Mr. Davies: British architecture might be out of keeping with such an ancient city, but in any case considerable difficulty is being encountered in this matter for, apparently, there is a housing shortage in Mexico City as well as here.

Mr. Sniithers: Will the Minister at least indicate that he will not simply buy a California-style villa, which is the usual thing available at present?

Oral Answers to Questions — BURMA (B.B.C. PROGRAMMES)

Major Tufron Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Burma Government recently refused to relay British Broadcasting Corporation programmes; and if he will ask them to reconsider their decision, in view of the fact that they are in receipt of a very considerable Commonwealth loan designed to assist them in their struggle against Communism.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Yes, Sir. I am aware that the Burma Broadcasting Service terminated the relay of the B.B.C. Burmese-language programme in April, 1949. The B.B.C. are, however, in touch with the Burma broadcasting authorities with regard to the resumption of relays. The loan to which the hon. and gallant Member refers involved no conditions relating to broadcasting. The answer to the second part of the Question is, therefore, "No, Sir."

Major Beamish: Is there no help which His Majesty's Government can give the B.B.C. to try to encourage the Burma Government to take advantage of the skill of the B.B.C. in this important matter?

Mr. Davies: We have made approaches to the Burma Government and we hope that eventually there will be a resumption of these relays, but at present we have not succeeded.

Mr. Wyatt: Is my hon. Friend aware that the reason why the Burma Government Broadcasting Corporation discontinued these broadcasts was because they entirely failed to reflect the changes which had taken place in this country since the end of the war? Is he aware that the notification of these changes, to the Far East in particular, is our greatest weapon? Is he further aware that until the Labour Government issues propaganda to the effect that one can have social progress without Communism, we shall not be able to persuade these people in the East to come on to our side?

Mr. Davies: I cannot accept all the assumptions which my hon. Friend advances. It is true that there was some criticism of these broadcasts, but that does not appear to be the reason why they were dropped. The reason was that the Burma Government needed the air time for the expansion of their own domestic services.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRIPOLITANIA (MALTESE)

Commander Noble: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs under what treaty obligations will war damage compensation be paid to the Maltese, now returned to Tripolitania, after evacuation to Italian concentration camps during the war.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State to a similar Question on 14th June, to which I have nothing to add.

Commander Noble: Is the Minister aware that in that reply his hon. Friend said this was the responsibility of the new regime in Tripolitania? As it is very important that these Maltese should receive their compensation, will His Majesty's Government give an undertaking that they will see that this matter is raised at Lake Success?

Mr. Davies: As the Minister of State informed the House, the sum of £16,000 has already been allocated to assist those in the greatest need, and ways and means are being explored as to how this matter can be dealt with, either under the Italian Peace Treaty in connection with the administration of the Colonies, or otherwise.

Commander Noble: Will the Minister give an assurance that the matter will be actively pursued?

Oral Answers to Questions — GENOCIDE CONVENTION

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why His Majesty's Government have not yet signed the Genocide Convention adopted unanimously by the United Nations General Assembly in December, 1948, particularly as it has already been signed by over 43 States.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I would refer my hon. Friend to the full statement on this Question made by my hon. Friend the Minister of State during the Debate on the Adjournment on 18th May. There has been no change in the position since that date.

Mr. Sorensen: Does that mean that no progress has been made at all towards the ratification of this very important Convention?

Mr. Davies: During the Debate on the Adjournment the difficulties with which we are faced in ratifying this Convention were given to the House, and there has been no change in the position. We are making an official communication to the Secretary-General of the United Nations stating the attitude of His Majesty's Government to the legal issues which are involved.

Mr. H. Strauss: Have His Majesty's Government any responsibility for this hopelessly illiterate expression "genocide" and, if not, have they protested against it?

Mr. Janner: May I ask my hon. Friend to reconsider this matter? Is he aware that on many occasions we have been informed that the matter was under consideration, that there were legal questions which had to be dealt with, but that they would be given immediate attention? Does he realise that this is an extremely important matter, which ought to be dealt with at once?

Mr. Davies: His Majesty's Government are very much aware that this is a matter which ought to be dealt with, but we are not convinced that the actual terms of the Genocide Convention are the best which can be obtained or that they are applicable to our own position in this country. However, some progress has been made in as much as we are communicating with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, as I have said, and our opinions will be passed on to the other members of the United Nations for their views.

EXPLOSION, PORTSMOUTH HARBOUR

The Prime Minister: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement in continuation of that made by my hon. Friend the Civil Lord of the

Admiralty on Wednesday last about the recent explosion in ammunition barges at Portsmouth on 14th July.
The board of inquiry into the incident has not yet completed its work but, in order to meet the wishes of the House, an interim report has been obtained as the inquiry has reached the stage which enables the board to state certain definite conclusions. One of these is that the fire which led to the explosion was caused maliciously by a person or persons unknown. Enough is known about the means employed to show that they were based on considerable scientific knowledge and were carefully calculated for their effect. The incident thus constitutes an act of sabotage, though it has not yet been possible to establish by whom it was committed. Further inquiries are proceeding.
The House will be glad to know that all the men who received injuries are recovering. I would like to take this opportunity of placing on record His Majesty's Government's high appreciation of the very valuable services given by those workpeople and their officers who dealt with this most dangerous situation. It was a miracle that there was not a serious loss of life among workers in the armament depot and their families living nearby: this was due to the prompt action, often in circumstances of considerable danger, taken by these men.

Mr. Eden: The Prime Minister has made a very grave statement indeed. I think we all want to be associated with what he said about the action taken by the officers and men on the spot. May I ask if he can say, without inconvenience, anything more about the passage in his statement in which he referred to this act having been perpetrated by persons possessed of considerable scientific knowledge? Can he say whether these persons were in Admiralty employ, and, if so, does he feel satisfied that the screening is adequate to avoid anything of this kind in the future?

The Prime Minister: No. There is no information to show by whom—or, indeed, where—the action that led to this fire was perpetrated; but I would say that the most careful screening does take place in Admiralty establishments, and that for some weeks now extra precautions have been taken.

Mr. Clement Davies: In view of the very startling situation disclosed by this statement, does not the Prime Minister consider that even stronger security measures should be taken with a view to protecting men and materials?

The Prime Minister: They have already been taken.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered:
That this day, Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock; and that if the first Resolution reported from the Committee of Supply of 20th July shall have been agreed to before half-past Nine o'clock, Mr. Speaker shall proceed to put forthwith the Questions which he is directed to put at half-past Nine o'clock by paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 16 (Business of Supply)."—[The Prime Minister.]
Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[26TH ALLOTTED DAY]

REPORT [20th July]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1950–51

Resolution reported:
That a sum, not exceeding £13,863,986, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sums necessary to defray the charges for the following services connected with Civil Defence for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951, namely:



£


Class III, Vote 1, Home Office
1,943,295


Class III, Vote 2, Home Office (Civil Defence Services)
4,024,270


Class V, Vote 1, Ministry of Health
5,605,000


Class I, Vote 26, Scottish Home Department
849,160


Class III, Vote 13, Scottish Home Department (Civil Defence Services)
467,261


Class V, Vote 14, Department of Health for Scotland
975,000


Total
£13,863,986."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

CIVIL DEFENCE

3.35 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I do not suppose there is a Member of this House who does not deeply regret the fact that we need to discuss the question of Civil Defence today. I suppose it would have been almost unthinkable to most of us in 1945 to imagine that by 1950 this House would once again be debating the subject, but of course we all know, particularly after the statement we have just heard from the Prime Minister, that it is necessary to look to our defences, and although Civil Defence is essentially civilian and passive in its nature, it is an integral part of defence as a whole.
We are bringing this subject forward today, but I want to make it quite clear at the beginning that we are not doing so with the object of making a general attack upon the Government. Some


people may think that the Government have been slow in the matter, and that they may be in danger of being overtaken by events; but, to be quite fair to them, they have had serious difficulties, which I shall come to in a moment. But our object today is to elicit information and, indeed, to offer assistance and encouragement to the Government in preparing proper Civil Defence plans.
The Government, of course, must have the responsibility for making plans and for laying down the organisation for Civil Defence, but they need the co-operation of the civilian population; therefore, in my view, the Government have a right to expect from other parties support with regard to public opinion, and particularly in the matter of recruiting; and that we shall certainly give. I emphasise, however that it is for the Government to take the lead.
Now, I referred just now to difficulties. I think the greatest difficulty is the general revulsion from the whole idea of war. Everybody feels it. I suppose that it is felt as much by members of the Government and by Members of this House as it is by the ordinary members of the public; and that does constitute a pretty considerable difficulty. All but the very youngest children have experienced one war, and a large number of other people have experienced two wars; and it is not as if this country has had a very easy time since the war, what with austerity, and so on.
I think it is particularly difficult at this moment because, whatever economic difficulties are lurking in the background—and many there may be—there is at the moment a sense of progress, and, indeed, I may say, of great normality. Hon. Members opposite may possibly forgive me for thinking that the disappearance of their swollen majority, and the fact that we now have a more even balance in this House, has something to do with promoting a greater feeling of normality in the country. Certainly the concessions that have followed the General Election—for example, the de-rationing of petrol—and the more even balance have had a considerable psychological effect. I noticed that even the Minister of Town and Country Planning was to be found dancing in the coalfields of Durham over the weekend.
The fact is that it is, at this moment, particularly hard to turn one's mind from the possibilities of peace to the grim realities of defence, and particularly of Civil Defence, because Civil Defence, unlike the professional Fighting Services, whose technical occupation it is to prepare for war, involves the civil population, and involves turning their minds to the disagreeable subjects of casualties, decontamination, escaping from bombed buildings, and even now of atom attack.
Therefore, I think we ought to recognise this difficulty and face it. I believe the beginning of wisdom in this matter is to face this difficulty. Every person, from members of the Government down to Members of this House and members of the public, has to face it. As a matter of fact, we have certain advantages in facing it, and one of them—paradoxically, since there is a great revulsion from war because of the wars—is the fact that the population to a great extent have had experience of war. Therefore, they know in their hearts that if it did come, such a method of Civil Defence would be necessary and would save life.
Secondly, apart from an insignificant minority, I think that in this matter we have unity in all the great parties of the State. The last thing I want to do is to be controversial this afternoon, but some hon. Members may recall that that was not an advantage which we had in the Home Office in the early days of A.R.P. preparations before the last war, because one of our great anxieties, was that some Socialist-controlled local authorities would not co-operate. I can assure the Government today that they will have no difficulty in that respect with authorities which may be controlled by our friends in the country. We can therefore go forward with a greater sense of unity than we had in a similar period of preparatory work before the last war.
A second great difficulty is the psychological impact of atomic warfare on public opinion. I suppose that there has never been a weapon of war which has entered upon the world's stage with so much of drama and of mystery. The public knew nothing even of the existence or the development of the weapon; suddenly it was used with dramatic power, and a great war in the Far East was immediately brought to an end.


Well, since then we have had a great amount of information and of horrible details, and there has been created in the public mind not only, quite properly, a sense of the sinister horror of the weapon but also a sense of gigantic mystery in regard to this extraordinary weapon.
In addition to that, we have had a good deal of exaggeration, and I see that the egregious Dean of Canterbury, speaking yesterday, said that the effect of the atomic bomb would be that stones and rocks would melt 60 miles away from the explosion. I believe that the Home Secretary could probably assure us that that is not likely to be the case; but the point I want to make is that at the moment public opinion is shocked by the detail, the mystery and the exaggeration with regard to the bomb.
Now, I would be the last to deny the dreadful qualities of this weapon, but I utterly repudiate a defeatist attitude with regard to the defence of these islands in regard to it, and I should just like, if I may, to remind the House of certain instances in the air-raid precautions before the war in which we faced problems that were rather similar psychologically, although I admit not quite so great in scale. Hon. Members may recall how the menace of poison gas was treated in regard to public opinion in the years immediately before the war. Goodness knows, it is a terrible enough weapon: there was chlorine to choke one, phosgene to kill one quickly, and mustard gas which not only attacked the lungs but could injure and even kill by application to the skin. Scientists wrote horrific articles about what would happen in the event of war, giving the impression that no kind of defence at all was possible against such a weapon. I remember one article by a scientist in which it was said that a gas cloud would drift over the whole of Southern England, including London, and that life would be insupportable and impossible.
How did we tackle that particular problem? We had research; we got down to details; by intelligence and other methods we found exactly which were the gases to be feared; their chemical properties and their toxic qualities were analysed; gas masks were devised to deal with or mustard gas we had special masks and protective clothing;

as training for the people who would have to deal with contaminated areas—incidentally, contaminated areas not unlike in some respects, though different in kind from, the menace with which we have to deal from atomic warfare—and so on.
The sequel is rather curious, because it happened that at one stage, while I was occupying the office of Under-Secretary of State to the Home Office it was thought wise to send me on an air-raid precautions tour of the European capitals. When one thinks of it in retrospect, it is rather curious to notice that I was received in a very friendly manner by Goering, by General Milch, his immediate subordinate in the Air Ministry, and by General Stumpf, then Chief of the German Air Staff. I well remember the apparent sincerity with which they gave an assurance that they would never be the first to use gas.
I do not know whether it had anything to do with it, but we were already accumulating considerable retaliatory stocks of gas for use in case it was used by the enemy; and we had already by then accumulated a stock of respirators for the entire civilian population. Curiously enough, when I was allowed to visit a German civil gas-mask factory, it was perfectly obvious to me that they had not by then prepared for even a fraction of their civilian population. At any rate, in the event this terrible weapon, against which we made so many considerable preparations, was never used.
But I would remind the House that there was another tremendous scare in relation to the incendiary bomb. It was calculated by experts that they could be dropped in enormous numbers; that that would cause a chain reaction of fires, which would speedily cause whole areas to be completely out of control. Now this weapon was used; and, indeed, it turned out to be a terrible one, as we know from the bombing of the cities in this country and the incendiary bombing of Hamburg and Tokyo—and the Home Secretary has, if I may say so, very usefully pointed out that the loss of life and, in some respects, the destruction of those two raids was greater than that caused by the explosion of the atomic bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
How did we tackle it? Again the thing was worked out. The experts decided that there must be fire pumps, and as a matter of fact I remember giving the first order for the auxiliary fire pumps when I was at the Home Office. Also, people had to be trained—and trained in what a way! I wonder whether hon. Members recall the joke, the laugh that spread over the country when all the clever gentlemen found it wise to make fun of Sir Samuel Hoare and Sir John Anderson when they first proposed that the incendiary bomb could be dealt with by air-raid wardens and Civil Defence personnel with the aid of buckets, sand and shovels? The clever cartoonists let themselves go, and we were shown all those ridiculous pictures of those right hon. Gentlemen making those absurd plans. Yet when we were up against the danger—and up against it in a great way—the plans worked.
Now I suggest to the House, with great diffidence, that that should be the method of approach to the menace of the atomic bomb so far as Civil Defence is concerned, always bearing in mind that, of course, that is not the only defence for us; there is also active defence, with which we are not concerned this afternoon, which may help at any rate to reduce the actual impact of this danger. Already we know something about it. When it is broken down from its mystery, there is the flash-burn, blast, and the radio-active effect. Now flash-burn—and I speak with great diffidence, because I know no more really than other hon. Members in the House, and we seek guidance from the Home Secretary—flash-burn, although serious, and I believe fatal, is in fact of very short duration; it is instantaneous; and I am advised that protection can be afforded by a relatively thin covering, and those who are taking proper shelter indoors away from the actual fall of the bomb have a very good chance of passing unscathed from flash-burn.
We are familiar with blast—unhappily familiar with it—and with the way in which the blast effect of bombs increased enormously during the last war, and how we had to adopt new methods of strengthening our shelters, and so on. Of course, the blast of an atomic bomb is enormously greater than the blast of any explosive we

have yet encountered. Still, it is not a mystery; it is something that we know about. I believe it is a fact that comparatively simple shelters of the earth type, in the ground but not deep, stood up extremely well to the atomic explosion. As to the radiological effect, we have something completely new on which we desire the complete attention of the Government. Here again, I believe—although I will not weary the House with it—we can break it down into various particular factors, and that at least against some of them preventive and protective measures can be taken, including our old friend the protective clothing of the mustard gas days.
May I suggest to the House that we are agreed that, on the whole, the right way to approach this problem is now, in a general programme, to revive the Civil Defence structure and plans which worked well in the last war, with certain important modifications for dealing with this new menace of the atomic bomb? From inquiries that I have made of local authorities and others, it is clear to me that the Government have already done a considerable amount of preparatory work. I assume that the planning of this work is done at the highest level by the Defence Committee of the Cabinet and by the Chiefs of Staff.
I should like to ask the Home Office spokesmen today whether they can give us any details of the co-operative planning at a rather lower level. I believe there is a Civil Defence Joint Planning Staff already in existence, and I should be grateful if we could have some details of how it is working. No doubt there is also working with it, fairly closely, the Civil Defence College, which, when it was opened, was attended by the Chief of the Imperial General Staff; and I should like to express, on behalf of my hon. Friends, the appreciation that we feel of the cordial co-operation that the fighting Services are giving with regard to Civil Defence in various parts of the country.
Although this planning is going on at this level, I think everyone will agree that it is inevitable that the local authorities will still play an enormous part in civil defence. They must. I understand that, owing to the heavier scale unit attacks which we must expect under atomic warfare conditions, it is believed to be a sound policy—and I would agree with


that, so far as I am advised—to have a much larger area of local authority or much bigger local authorities responsible in general for the work. I understand that there is a system of zones—areas liable to special attack for their strategic and industrial importance—and that regions will be provided with mobile Civil Defence divisions of the new Civil Defence Corps. The Civil Defence Corps is, I believe, a Crown service, although it will be raised by the local authorities.
I should like to put to the Home Secretary one general question about cooperation with the local authorities. My recollection is that in air-raid precautions plans before the war, the general scheme in operation was for the Home Office to ask the local authorities to prepare their own schemes. It is true that the Home Office provided a model scheme as a guide, but the local authorities were asked to make their own schemes which, with the approval of the Home Secretary, became the official schemes for their areas.
There seems to be a change in the procedure. At present we appear to be operating under a series of codes issued by the different Departments. I have not heard of the same initial responsibility being put on the local authorities to prepare their own schemes; nor have I heard of any model scheme proposed by the Government and given to the local authorities as a guide. The right hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary will see that in this matter I—I expect in common with a good many other people in this House and in the country—am in a state of some ignorance as to exactly what is proposed. What I am anxious about is that the change in procedure may reduce the willing co-operation of the local authorities, which is so essential to the success of the whole scheme.
In talking to people in the country who are connected with local authorities on this matter, I have found a sense of frustration. Whether it is justified or not, I cannot say. Our purpose is not to exploit it or to exaggerate it. Our purpose is to bring it forward, so that it may be allayed or removed by the Government. I think that to do so the Government will, as soon as possible, have to tell the local authorities what their plans should be, tell them what the Civil Defence establishment can do, and particularly inform

them what is the establishment of a Civil Defence mobile division, which is a very important new part of the scheme.
I believe that, in addition to the mobile divisions of the region which would go to the assistance of hard-pressed districts, the Army may help in certain circumstances. There is some confusion with regard to how much they can help and whether it conflicts with any other of the Army's rôles. I understand that the Civil Defence schools at Falfield and Easingwold, which I used to know in the days before the war, are operating again. We should like to have some information with regard to the output of trained instructors and whether these instructors are to hold schools or courses in the local authorities' areas.
With regard to shelters, I think that the Government must tell the local authorities and the country more about their shelter policy. I received a telegram from Edinburgh on this point shortly before I reached the House this afternoon. There is also the very important question of the warning system.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is it suggested by Edinburgh that the Government should proceed in making air-raid shelters?

Mr. Lloyd: No, it is suggested that the Government Departments are unable to advise concerning shelters, and I was asked to raise the subject in the Debate this afternoon. I do not know what is the information of other hon. Members, but my information is that certain counties and county boroughs have done a lot on the subject of Civil Defence, while others have done very little. In other words, the state of Civil Defence in the country as a whole is very patchy. But there is one thing which is universally bad, and that is recruiting. I have explained the difficulties with which I feel the Government are faced. We had about 1½ million people in the Civil Defence service during the war. Can the Home Secretary tell us, if he is not making any secret of the figure, what is the number at the present time, and whether it exceeds 30,000? I think that everyone would agree that that number would be plainly insufficient.
A good deal of work has been done by the Government, but the work in the local authorities' areas varies a great deal,


and this is the moment when we ought to take a decisive move forward in our Civil Defence preparations. In order to do that, we need to have a lead from the Government. We need a statement of policy by the Home Secretary with special reference to the method of dealing with atomic attacks, and the local authorities need to be given information about a model scheme, and the establishment of the various departments of Civil Defence. This also applies to industry. I am told that we can make a great deal of progress with reasonable speed.
Perhaps I may conclude by saying this. Our country was exceedingly lucky, not only in regard to active air defence but with regard to Civil Defence, that at the beginning of the last war we had the so-called "phoney war" which enabled the Civil Defence organisation to take advantage of the mobilisation of the people's will to defence. The Home Secretary himself has stated—and we would all agree with him—that in the next war the first month may be decisive. This is a thing we have always to bear in mind in making our preparations. Let us always bear in mind the essential importance of the unity of the three great parties when dealing with Civil Defence matters.
We know that in the last resort this work has to be done by the people. We know, as politicians and as candidates, that when we go around the country we find in any street a person in one house belonging to one political party and his neighbour belonging to another. In other words, we must all give a lead together. I heard the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) giving a most interesting, witty and objective account of the week in Westminster on the B.B.C. the other day. He referred to one of my hon. Friends—I am sure that he meant no offence; at any rate, I am making no complaint about it—rather wittily as someone whom he thought might be described as a younger and shrewder brother of Colonel Blimp. I think that far too many jokes were made about Colonel Blimps in the years before the war. When we come down to the point, it was the Colonel Blimps, the Major Blimps, the Captain Blimps, the Sergeant Blimps, the Private Blimps and the Mrs. Blimps who did the job of Civil Defence.

Therefore, let us make an appeal to some of our clever intellectuals that, although we need the "boffins," we also need the Colonel Blimps.

Mr. Shurmer: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the difficulties the Home Office had with a number of Socialist councils, which may give a wrong impression. Is it not a fact that these differences were in regard to the depth of air-raid shelters, and that apart from that, when the attack came, there was no council in the country, whatever its politics, which did not work for Civil Defence?

Mr. Lloyd: I will try to answer in the least controversial manner possible, having regard to the subject and the great anxieties that the matter caused me in the days before the war. The reason some local Socialist councils before the war did not co-operate in regard to air-raid precautions in the preparatory phases is a matter which they must decide for themselves, but I think it was a question of general politics and not whether the shelters were to be deep shelters or not. Of course, when the time came, everyone was solid together. What I am saying today is that the Government have not got that anxiety at the present time, and it is vital that we should be solid together at the moment of preparation and not merely at the moment of danger.

4.5 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas): I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for King's Norton (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd) for the attitude he has adopted and for his approach to this problem. He is correct when he speaks of the ignorance of the true facts of atomic warfare as breeding a feeling in some places of helplessness, a feeling, in fact, of—"Well, what is the good of Civil Defence anyway?" Not for the first time in history we have reached a stage when ignorance of the nature of a national danger is even more dangerous than the danger itself.
The fact is that it is very difficult for men and women, even those directly concerned with Civil Defence, to get a balanced and objective view of this problem. Too many people have made up their minds about atomic warfare without looking at the evidence. Last month,


I spoke at a series of meetings of chairmen of Civil Defence committees and others, and after the first meeting I was surprised when one of my audience came up and complained that I was too complacent and another that I was too alarmist. I was even more surprised when after the next meeting in another city exactly the same thing happened. It is extraordinarily hard to find a balance between the two.
We have been asked, quite rightly, to give the facts of atomic warfare to the public. On Wednesday, we shall publish a manual on atomic warfare. It is a very important document. It is not a pamphlet dashed off over night, but a scientific statement of the study of the problem based largely on our Commission's work in Japan. It deals with just the points which have been raised by the right hon. Gentleman. In fact, it puts the atomic bomb into perspective. The manual estimates, incidentally, that the cause of death in Japan from atomic bombing, under the three heads the right hon. Gentleman gave, as being roughly 20 to 30 per cent. from heat flash, 50 to 60 per cent. from injuries and burns caused by blast, and 15 to 20 per cent. from radio-activity. As we were reminded, only radio-activity is new. It is important to understand this. It is not as if we have been suddenly thrust into a field of which we are totally ignorant. It is an unfortunate fact that Civil Defence is not a new problem. Certainly it has been a problem all my life. My earliest childhood memory is of an air raid in London during the First World War. But because the radiological effect is new it is inclined to be overstressed. We must strike a balance.
In the foreword to the Manual, the Prime Minister says this:
We shall not … abandon our hope that an effective system of international control may ultimately be adopted by the United Nations and we, for our part, will certainly do all in our power to make such an agreement possible. In the meantime, we must proceed with our Civil Defence preparations on the basis that, in the event of war, we may be subjected to atomic attack …
We all know the long sad story of the failure of the United Nations Atomic Energy Committee. It was in 1945 that the Prime Minister, the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada signed the Washington Declaration. Ever since then, we have pressed

for international agreement to ensure that atomic energy shall be used only for peaceful purposes.
It is important in studying this problem to see where we have come. I start with November, 1945, the month of the Washington Declaration, when we put our Civil Defence into cold storage without a dissenting voice in this House. This was in the Civil Defence (Suspension of Powers) Act, 1945. Then there was the failure of the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission, and two years later the Prime Minister, on November, 1947, told the House at this Box that discussions would soon be started on setting up a new Civil Defence organisation. In March, 1948, we established both the Civil Defence Joint Planning Staff and the Official Committee on Civil Defence. That was the first step, and these were the bodies which were to consider how far our Civil Defence system had to be modified in the light of the possibility of atomic attack. In the summer of 1948 came the standstill on the demolition of air-raid shelters and static water tanks, and later in the year the Home Secretary brought in his Civil Defence Bill, which gave the Government wide powers to make Regulations. It was a further step in our plan for developing a new Civil Defence policy to deal with this possible new method of attack.
In the summer of 1949 came the first of the general regulations. They gave local authorities certain administrative powers to carry out regulations which would be made, as well as the specific task of organising the local divisions of the Civil Defence Corps. In the autumn of last year, we went on to more detailed regulations, such as those concerning that important allied service—the fire brigade. Last week we had the Police Training Regulations? They went through without discussion, but afterwards I was asked whether it implied that the police had not been going ahead with their Civil Defence training. I wish to clear up that point, because that was not the implication at all. It was merely substituting an "order" for a "request" so that the police authorities could get grants for the training which is already taking place.
In view of what was said, I must make it clear that there is no question of imposing unwanted duties or methods of organisation on the local authorities. All


the circulars covering the regulations have been fully discussed with the local authorities' associations and, more than that, they have agreed to them. That applies not only to the regulations made by the Home Secretary but to those made by other Ministers, the Minister of Health, the Secretary of State for Scotland, and the Minister of Food. In spite of the alteration in the position of local authorities caused by the changed conditions of modern war, and in spite of changes in the health organisation which, for instance, puts the first-aid units under the regional hospital boards, the central Government works very closely with the local authorities and will continue to do so.
Apart from the organisation and the training of volunteers, there has been administrative guidance given by the Departments; for instance, by the Home Office on the Fire Service, and by the Ministry of Health on evacuation and provision for the homeless. Tomorrow night there are regulations coming before the House in which the Ministry of Health are offering guidance on plans for the clearing of debris and first-aid repairs to houses. These regulations all follow an ordered pattern. They are part of the fruits of the planning organisation we set up right at the beginning, in March, 1948.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the Civil Defence Joint Planning Staff. Its task is to define the Civil Defence problems which have to be resolved, to organise working parties of experts to study these problems and to submit recommendations to the Official Civil Defence Committee also set up at that time, and, of course, if necessary to the Ministerial Civil Defence Committee, over which my right hon. Friend presides.
The chairman of the Planning Staff is appointed by the Home Secretary and the link with the Services is very strong. The Services are represented by really senior officers: the Army by a major-general. The Staff is in close touch with the military Chiefs of Staff. This ensures that it works on the same assumptions, so far as they are relevant, as the military planners. On the technical side it works through the Chief Scientific Adviser at the Home Office from whom it can obtain all the technical information needed, whether from Harwell, the National

Physical Laboratory or the manufacturers of special technical equipment.
The Civil Defence Staff College is another necessary and important development in modern war. It has already become a national institution. Its five-week courses are attended by the leading men and women in Civil Defence. A fortnight ago when I was there, I was struck by the wide experience represented in each of the syndicates. We had Civil Defence officers, Service officers both active and retired—there was a Canadian general and an Australian brigadier—senior police officers, senior fire officers and W.V.S. regional organisers. When the Home Secretary opened the college, he explained that it was designed largely to serve as a "laboratory of ideas," and indeed it has done that and is doing it very well.
One of the dangers of talking so much about planning and staff work is that it draws the threads too much to the centre. This emphasis on planning and staff work is right, because it has been a necessary preliminary to the setting up of the new Civil Defence organisation. But it does not in any way mean that Civil Defence is not a local organisation. It is. It is an organisation of men and women coming together as neighbours to defend one another as neighbours. It is more. It is an organisation of local authorities coming together as neighbouring local authorities to give mutual aid one to another. It is indeed a local service.
Having said that it is a local service, I must say something of the authorities who organise the divisions of the Civil Defence Corps. They are the county councils, the county borough councils, the Metropolitan Borough councils, and a few county districts where circumstances are somewhat unusual, such as in the case of the City of Peterborough, which is a city in the middle of a rural soke. Working closely with this Corps are the three allied services, the A.F.S., the National Hospital Service Reserve and the Police including the Special Constabulary. In August of last year a Home Office circular drew the attention of local authorities to the importance of appointing Civil Defence officers. It is a post which is obviously of key importance in this organisation. At present there are in the country 44 whole-time Civil Defence officers; 29 Civil Defence officers


who are also general instructors, and 12 assistant Civil Defence officers, that is where the clerk himself is the Civil Defence officer.
London, of course, has a different organisation. Except in London, the local unit of the Civil Defence Corps is divided into six sections; headquarters, warden, rescue, ambulance, pioneer and welfare. I refer only to the purely local organisation, but it will be supplemented by mobile full-time forces, which will serve over much wider areas and will fit in with the regional organisation which worked so well in the last war. I would emphasise that for the time being we have concentrated on recruiting for the Corps on a local basis and for part-time service.
It is obvious that the new Civil Defence Corps will need not only equipment, such as we knew in the last war, but also new types of equipment. To find these new types of equipment, we set out on two forms of research; first, operational research, and then research into defensive measures. Operational research is the responsibility of the Chief Scientific Adviser to the Home Office. He gives the planners the numbers on which to work; for example, an estimate of the number and type of casualties which might be expected in given circumstances if there were an atomic attack upon a particular centre of population.
In the case of research into defensive measure, the responsibility is not so clearly defined because it depends upon the matter which has to be gone into. A great deal of medical research is being done at the request of the Ministry of Health. Research into shelters and buildings is primarily the responsibility of the Ministry of Works. Investigation into the prevention of fire caused by flash in an atomic attack is being carried out by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research at the request of the Home Office and the Scottish Office. Research into instruments for the detention and measuring of gamma rays and other types of atomic radiation has been carried out under the Ministry of Supply. The instruments have been standardised with the Fighting Services. In the Atomic Manual which will be published on Wednesday are full descriptions of them. They include the quartz-fibre electroscope, the portable dose-rate meter, and the contamination

meter. They are already in use at the training schools.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the two schools that he knew so well before the war, at Falfield and Easingwold. Those are the two schools which have been reopened. When we decided to revive Civil Defence, it was clear that we needed up-to-date instructors, so we reopened these schools. They train instructors in Civil Defence generally—in such subjects as protection against high explosive bombs, incendiary bombs and gas—and in elementary fire fighting, and atomic warfare, as well as rescue work. Since those schools were opened they have turned out 700 fully trained general instructors and 450 fully trained rescue instructors. Those 700 general instructors have, in their turn, trained 2,800 instructors who are known generally as the "green certificate instructors." This training has been done locally. These instructors will go to the two schools for a very short course to ensure that their training is up to standard in all respects. Until now, Scottish instructors have come into England for training, but a school is soon to be opened at Taymouth Castle in Perthshire. I should like to add that if there are any questions on Civil Defence in Scotland, the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is on the Bench with me to answer them.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Are the instructors who have been trained part of the permanent officials of local county or borough authorities?

Mr. de Freitas: A considerable number, nearly one-third, are police. They take a long course—of three and half weeks. Most of them are employers of local authorities or public servants such as police, and they are seconded for this purpose.
Thus there is training centrally, and then the centrally-trained instructors train others locally. So we have a snowball effect, and we can give a complete course of training to far more people than we could accommodate at any technical training schools. Members of the Civil Defence Corps get their training in two stages, the basic training and the section training. The section training is specialist continuation of that basic training to suit the particular branch of the Corps and the type of work which will be done. What


the basic training covers can best be illustrated if I say that the Atomic Warfare Manual which comes out on Wednesday is the sixth and last manual covering basic training. The other five which have already been published are—Gas, Fire, Rescue, High Explosives, and First Aid. The full first-aid course is given by a doctor, the shorter one usually by qualified instructors of the British Red Cross and of the St. John Ambulance in England and Wales, and of the St. Andrew's Ambulance in Scotland.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about peace-time establishments. In May, the Home Secretary said that he hoped to let the authorities have this information in the autumn. The right hon. Gentleman also asked how far we had gone in recruiting. At the end of June there were between 47,000 and 48,000 volunteers in the Civil Defence and allied services. There were approximately 32,000 in the Civil Defence Corps, 4,000 in the Auxiliary Fire Service, 3,000 in the National Hospital Service Reserve and 9,000 in the Special Constabulary. The rate of recruiting is going up, but not nearly fast enough. It is our hope that as a result of this Debate and the publicity given to it we shall have more volunteers.
After 10 hours' training, a volunteer is entitled to the Civil Defence Corps badge and also to one of the uniforms which we will begin to issue in the autumn. This is not something which we have decided upon independently; the local authorities' associations have agreed with us about the uniforms, which will be a blue battle-dress, with slacks or skirt, a beret bearing the Civil Defence Corps badge, and a greatcoat. There will be badges of rank, and flashes giving the name of the place and showing the particular service.
I always get questions asking why certain people may join the Civil Defence and others may not. I therefore feel that I should summarise the six principles governing recruitment and the broad results of applying those principles. First, every effort should be made to avoid conflict between recruiting for Civil Defence and recruiting for the Auxiliary Services of the Armed Forces. Second, in any serious emergency the Armed Forces would have large-scale expansion from the so-called "Z" reserves, that is, the civilians who

served in the Second World War. Third, in view of this fact, the fit man under 30 years of age should be regarded as a "fighting man." His proper form of service would be in the Territorial Army or one of the other auxiliary services. He should not be in Civil Defence. Fourth, the man between 30 and 40 years of age should be regarded either as a fighting man or as suitable for a physically strenuous form of Civil Defence, such as rescue work. Fifth, the man over 40 should be regarded as primarily available for Civil Defence. Sixth, people in the Forces, Regular Reserves, and in the Police, Fire Services, and Merchant Navy, and doctors and nurses, should not be eligible at all.
If we apply those principles to the Corps we get the following broad result. First, people over 40 can join unless they have other definite commitments in war. Second, nearly all men and women between 30 and 40 can join, but men who are class "Z" reservists can join only the Rescue and Pioneer sections, that is the physically strenuous sections. Certain "Z" reservists in this group cannot join at all, because they have some particular skill or training of great value to the Armed Forces. Third, men under 30 cannot join unless they have been declared unfit for the Forces. Fourth, women under 30 can join the ambulance section. Lest it should appear that the regulations are unduly restrictive, I must emphasise that 16 million people are eligible to join.

Captain Waterhouse: Are there any provisions to ensure that we do not get active Communists in the Civil Defence system?

Mr. de Freitas: Active Communists are, of course, watched.

Captain Waterhouse: Are they actually recruited?

Mr. de Freitas: I can assure the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that active Communists are watched but the much more dangerous person is the seemingly inactive, subtle Communist. The right hon. Member for King's Norton said that much of the service was patchy and that the recruiting was positively bad. It is certainly uneven. On the basis of recruits per thousand among the population the recruiting leaders are Exeter, Salford and Doncaster among the county boroughs; Kensington, St. Marylebone and Westminster among the Metropolitan


Boroughs, and East Suffolk, Dorset and Bedford among the counties.
We all know that there are tens of thousands of men and women who say "Do not worry. I shall be there when the balloon goes up." But we cannot say too often to them that that it is not good enough. In fact, it is no good at all. We just could not train those tens of thousands of people on the first day of a war, and however experienced they were in the last war they now need training in the new techniques. The time to come forward is now when we have the men and women ready to train them.
I have spoken a lot—I hope not too much—of planning and staff work, of the Planning Staff, the Staff College, and of the training schools and the Atomic Manual; of contamination meters and electroscopes. I run the danger of implying mat only a graduate of the Staff College with a doctor's degree in nuclear physics is wanted for Civil Defence. But all the scientific advisers, all the senior civil servants, all the Ministerial committees, all the contamination meters and electroscopes in the world do not add up to real Civil Defence.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Is the Government advised by any scientist who was present at the last atomic bomb experiment conducted by the United States? Is there a scientist in this country who was present at any of the Pacific experiments?

Mr. de Freitas: Most certainly so. I was saying that I ran the danger of implying that Civil Defence consisted only of all these technical things. But it does not. It comes right back to men and women working together to defend their families and neighbours. We want ordinary men and women—Mr. and Mrs. Smith, and Mrs. Jones at the corner.

4.34 p.m.

Commander Noble: I would first of all reassure the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. S. O. Davies) that not only were scientists from this country at Bikini but also there were two hon. Members of this House, the present Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Civil Aviation and myself.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Perhaps there is some misunderstanding. What I wanted

to know was whether any British scientist was present at the last atomic bomb experiment in the United States.

Commander Noble: I did not have the privilege of attending those further tests, but, as the Under-Secretary has just said, we had scientists there.

Mr. S. O. Davies: At the last experiment?

Mr. de Freitas: I said "Yes."

Commander Noble: I am sure that we are all very grateful for the information which the Under-Secretary has given us about what has been happening in the fields of planning, research, training and the like. It has borne out what was said by my right hon. Friend, that a great deal of work has been done by the Government. The Civil Defence Joint Planning Staff have obviously got through a very great deal.
I also visited the Civil Defence Staff College the other day, and I entirely agree with the Under-Secretary that it is reassuring to see the work which is being done there by a very interested and knowledgeable selection of students from all over the country. However, I feel that the time has come when we should see a little more of the results of all this planning and research. If I am a little critical in some of my remarks I hope that the Home Secretary and the House will accept it in the spirit that it is one's duty to make these criticisms if one feels them. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation will remember that when we were at Bikini we were asked how it was that we were able to share a double cabin for some two months without apparent disagreement. We said we thought that the atomic bomb was above party, and, in the same way, Civil Defence is also above party.
Everyone will agree that the scale of Civil Defence required by a country is very largely dependent, first, on the weapons of the enemy, and, second, on the ability of one's other forces to prevent the enemy dropping those weapons on our own country. Therefore, the scale of Civil Defence which we must have first of all is very dependent upon radar, then on air interception and the straffing of enemy bases. There have been some very disquieting rumours in the last few weeks about the state of our other forces, with


particular reference to the Royal Air Force. I hope we shall be told something about this on Wednesday. No doubt we shall, and though I hope that we shall be reassured I am not very confident on that point. Whatever the state of our other Forces, all hon. Members will agree that our Civil Defence in another war, should there be such a tragedy, has to be not only as efficient as it was before but much more efficient because, as my right hon. Friend and the Under-Secretary have said, it has to compete not only with atomic weapons and guided missiles but perhaps with a combination of both.
I am not at all happy, as I hinted at the beginning of my speech, that we have got quite as far as we should have done. In the "Christian Science Monitor" of 17th July there appeared a paragraph which discussed this country's difficulties about rearming. It was headed "Difficult Choices" and said:
Is there to be a major rearmament move and a new enlistment drive? Will civil defence preparations against air attack be taken seriously in hand? In civil defence there is less mobilisation today than in 1939.
Why is it that there is "less mobilisation today"?
I want, first, to say something about recruiting. The Under-Secretary told us that it was going up but was not fast enough. I am glad that he referred to part of my constituency as being among the good boys. I think everyone will agree that Civil Defence is really protection of the people by the people, but there has to be the co-ordination, the organisation and the co-operation of the Government.
If we are to get people to co-operate in Civil Defence, we have to assure them that they will get four things. First, an efficient warning system; second, an efficient dispersal and shelter system; third, up to date and realistic equipment, not only to work with when the time comes, but to train on now. In the case of shelters there has to be a daylight shelter system where people work and a night shelter system where they live. Fourth, people must be told what it is all about. That was emphasised most strongly by my right hon. Friend, and I was glad to hear the Under-Secretary say that a document is coming out on Wednesday. If it is in the right, readable form, I am sure it will prove to be

what people have been wanting. I hope that His Majesty's Ministers will lose no opportunity of introducing this document, perhaps by broadcast, and of explaining the position.
I think that one of the reasons why people are not coming forward is because of a defeatist attitude towards the atomic bomb, and, therefore, I welcome what has been said already on that point. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation will bear me out when I say that in the numerous talks and lectures we have given since we came back, while stressing the terrible nature of the atomic bomb, we have always tried to emphasise that it is strictly limited in its effects and that there is some adequate protection against the four categories of damage which it produces. At the same time, one must also emphasise the difference between our western cities, with their big, strong buildings, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where there were only light buildings and very little defence, with a resulting large number of casualties.
I will not go again into the four effects of the atomic bomb because my right hon. Friend has dealt with them, but I would emphasise the danger from fire from the actual flash when the bomb goes off. It has to be seen to be believed. When one considers that it could be seen at a distance of 20 miles on a brilliant tropical day through glasses so thick that one could not see the person standing beside one, it gives some idea of the intensity of heat which the bomb produces.
With regard to the radiated rays given off at the moment of explosion, it has to be remembered that they are much reduced in intensity by distance and by passing through mass. Therefore, although it is very dangerous to be at the centre mass may give some protection, and the danger goes down considerably as one is further away, and it may well be that somebody who meets this danger will not get a sufficient dose to be lethal. The same applies to contaminated areas by radio-active materials and by induced radio-activity. When talking about the atomic bomb it should be remembered that at the moment we do not expect—I hope we never shall meet that day—atomic bombs to be dropped in "sticks," as were conventional


bombs in the past. And it is difficult to drop a single bomb on a specific place from about 20,000 feet and have it set to exactly the right height over the right target.
Another point that must be remembered is that the damage done by an atomic bomb depends on the height at which it is exploded. If it is exploded very high up there will be a wide area of not so serious damage as if it were exploded nearer the ground, in which case there would be a highly concentrated area of serious damage. That applies also to the radio-active effect. If it is exploded high in the air, the contamination will be less serious than if the bomb were exploded on the ground.
I do not think the Home Office will get the recruits required for Civil Defence by public meetings and campaigns alone. First, let us tell everybody everything where possible. Secondly, I suggest that some great public figure, entirely divorced from politics, might be associated with Civil Defence, either to lead the campaign or to lead the Force. Thirdly, let this training be as imaginative as possible and not cut down by a shortage of equipment. If it is not possible at the moment to provide all the equipment required, why should there not be depots in the big cities all over this country?
For example, in London why should not the London County Council have a store of equipment which the London boroughs could borrow for the particular type of training they were doing on a given day? It is really rather silly to tell people all about Geiger counters and electroscopes and then train them only with photographs. It is not realistic enough. The moment has come when, perhaps at the expense of our economic recovery and even at the expense of dollars, we have to start putting money and production into this kind of equipment.
There are one or two small points to be made on recruiting. First, with regard to industry, I am told that recruits are not coming forward from firms or industries because the latter do not know the part that they themselves may have to play in the Civil Defence set-up. That could quite easily be overcome and I ask the Home Secretary to look at it. I have been told, for instance, that the railways

are recommending their employees not to join their local defence organisation because the railways themselves do not yet know whether they will have to call upon their employees. I have no confirmation of that statement.
With regard to the Class Z Reserve, many key men in local authorities, and therefore, key men in Civil Defence, are on that reserve. In the event of emergency they would all be called up and so perhaps the control room organisation would break down. I should say it is a matter for consideration whether some of the most important of these men should not be exempt. The question of uniform is important and has been dealt with already. It should be made easier for the local authorities to get their equipment. Do not let us haggle, at this relatively late hour, over a comparative small number of pounds. I know of one London borough which has been having the greatest difficulty in setting up an incendiary bomb hut at a cost of £160. They have been trying for many weeks and they have not got it yet.
We have not heard today, but perhaps the Home Secretary will tell us tonight, whether the Government have a shelter policy. This is one of the terms of reference of a Working Party of the Civil De-fence Joint Planning Staff. I hope we shall soon know what that policy is. I read in the "Daily Telegraph" on Friday, 21st July, that an official of the Civil Defence Staff College, I think it was, had said that the Government's shelter programme was well advanced on paper. The paper might protect us against the flash burn, but I would like to see something more going on in this country and people knowing a little more of what is to be the Government's shelter policy. What this official went on to say was very disquieting. He said:
They have got some of the biggest experts on that job and have worked out the cost to the country at between £500 million and £600 million.
Are we really going to be able to spend between £500 and £600 million on a shelter policy?
That brings me back to a Question which I put to the Home Secretary on 2nd December, 1948, when I asked him:
what instructions or advice are now given to builders of large buildings with regard to cellars or garages and their possible future use as shelters,


to which the right hon. Gentleman replied:
None as yet, but the matter is receiving active consideration.
After I had put a supplementary question, the right hon. Gentleman said:
A draft technical memorandum is at the moment under consideration by the professional institutes involved. We are actively proceeding in the matter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd December, 1948; Vol. 458, c. 2160.]
I do not know in what direction the Government have been proceeding, because last year in my constituency a block of some 214 flats was completed but no instructions were given that anything was to be done to provide some sort of cellar, garage, rooms, or other accommodation, which would not only be part of the daily life of the buildings, but could be of use as a shelter. Had a grant or instructions been given to builders of factories, flats and similar large buildings, a very great deal of the £500 or £600 million which I have mentioned might have been saved during the last four years. I hope that when the Home Secretary replies tonight he will tell us the result of the "active consideration" of which he told the House in December, 1948.
I wonder what is the position with regard to respirators? I understand that there are to be several different types. Are they yet in production? I wonder also whether there is any black-out material in the country? I do not believe that there is. We on this side have in the last few years repeatedly warned the Government against a "No war for a number of years" policy. Whatever may have been the Government's policy—and it has been a little difficult at times to see what it was—there is no doubt that they must have been very surprised, and probably their policy was rather upset, by the fact that Russia had the atomic bomb in 1949.
Many people who have been listening to the wireless lately may have heard a tune called, "Enjoy yourselves; it's later than you think." I should like to misquote that title and to ask the Government to say to themselves and to the people of this country, with regard to Civil Defence, "Employ yourselves; it's later than you think."

4.53 p.m.

Mr. Shurmer: I hope that we shall not get

panicky over this business. I think that everyone in the House and in the country will agree that after five years of reconstruction—which is, after all, only a small span—it is distressing that we should be talking about destruction. Nevertheless, we have to face the situation.
I have read in the Press a suggestion that there should be conscription for Civil Defence. Let me say straight away that I hope that the Government will not resort to such a step. We are not starting Civil Defence this time under the same conditions as in 1938. I happen to have been an alderman in the city a part of which I represent, and I had a large part of a working-class area under my control during the heavy attack on Birmingham. Living right in the heart of that area and knowing something about the work of the men and women there, I am confident that, while we have nothing but praise for the older men and women who remained at home and took their part in Civil Defence, whatever might happen in future—which we all hope it will not—there will be a ready response by all men and women, irrespective of age, who are able to take part in the protection of the younger and the aged people and their homes and property.
There are still in existence in all our towns and cities a great number of the various sections of people who took part in Civil Defence, and no doubt they could be got together again in a very short time. While there is a new conception of Civil Defence as far as the atomic bomb is concerned, one knows very well that in any future emergency much of the work of the hospital teams, the auxiliary fire services and the rescue squads would be of a somewhat similar nature to that carried out in the late war. Many of the same people still remain and would make a ready response should the need arise.
I do not know what happens in other towns and cities regarding air raid shelters, but in the thickly populated district which I represent and in which I live we have been appealing to the Home Secretary for a long time. We have plenty of shelters, although many of them may need to be reinforced. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble) that in the building of blocks of flats and new factories, as in the case of the new civic centre which has been partly constructed at Birmingham


and which was supposed to have had a car park beneath it, as did the new market, the underground space could well be used as an air raid shelter, as was done during the last war.
I say to my right hon. Friend and both sides of the House, "Please do not frighten the people." One knows what happened in 1938. At the beginning of the last war I was connected with a percussion band of 70 girls, who did their training in a school, but immediately there was a rehearsal for blacking out the streets and the schools were used for distributing gas masks, people began to get panicky. Far more good would be done by appealing to the people. While the situation in Korea may not be too bad, it is nevertheless bringing home to people more than ever the need for self-protection.
In my city we have a good air raid chief, already a number of people are coming forward, and we have many public-spirited men. Although I am 61 years of age, I can modestly say that should the time again come, or even before if I see the necessity coming, I will be at the helm to do my little bit. I can say the same for all those in Birmingham who are still able to do their share. They will be ready to respond in Civil Defence. But again I say, please do not adopt conscription.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Ian Harvey: I wish to associate myself very strongly with the observations made by my right hon. Friend the Member for King's Norton (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd) on the subject of keeping this Debate essentially out of the realm of political controversy. I think I can assure the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary that although support behind him may be a little thin he has a great deal of support on this issue facing him from this side of the House.
I wish to follow up a very important observation made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble) on the subject of the possible prelude to the next conflict. Last time, I think with a good deal of reason, we all assumed that there would be an instantaneous attack on this country. We were not right; and it was very fortunate that we were not right. This time it would be most unwise if we were to assume that similar tactics would be employed by any

aggressor. In fact, I think it very reasonable to assume that quite the reverse tactics would be followed if that aggressor were in a position to deal such an attack on this country. Although I entirely agree with the observations of the hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Shurmer) about panic—no one wants panic in this country, nor are the people of this country given to panic—we must create conditions which ensure that the people take the necessary precautions to train to deal with any situation which might arise.
We must have the necessary qualifications and there must be the essential cadre trained to cope with any emergency. That is the reason why we on this side of the House have urged that this Debate should take place, because we want to see those precautions taken, and taken in good time. I hope those who, in a public-spirited way, have already come forward will not take it that we are in any way criticising them if we say that the situation today shows inadequacy. We are not criticising their efforts, but are deeply grateful to them for coming forward at a time when a great deal of public spiritedness is required to do so. We all realise, and I think the tone of the speech of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department indicated it, that the Government have a very difficult task, psychologically, to deal with this problem after five years of what has been called peace. We all sympathise with that problem and it is our anxious desire to see it solved.
I was very glad that the Under-Secretary announced that a manual was coming out. As one who served in the Army I hope it will be a lot more readable than the Army Manual was. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see that it is put across to the country in easily understandable terms. In particular, let us make it clear that the atomic menace is to be viewed in its proper perspective. I have discussed this subject with a number of people who have been most active in Civil Defence and I am given to understand that the atomic menace is only No. 3 on the priority list and that, from the point of view of Civil Defence, fire and H.E. are still regarded as more dangerous as a whole to the general safety of the community. That, of course, is a situation which may not remain but one of which we have to take cognisance at present.
I was very glad that the Under-Secretary said that Civil Defence is essentially a local service. I welcome this conversion on his part to the doctrine of decentralisation, but, as one who is associated, like the hon. Member for Sparkbrook—although not in so exalted a capacity—with local government, I think this is where one of the weaknesses arise. I do not think it has been decentralised in the fullest sense of the word, or that local government understands to the fullest extent exactly what is expected of it.
I would like the right hon. Gentleman to give some indication of how many local authorities have thought it necessary to create Civil Defence committees, because I would have thought that a prime essential. I understand, although I am very much open to correction on the matter, that guidance so far given to local authorities on the question of remuneration and the amount of money they are to get back is not clear. I understand it is 75 per cent. in principle, but we all know there is a great deal of difference sometimes between things in principle and things in practice. I am open to misunderstanding and misapprehension, and that misapprehension is shared by a lot of local authorities. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us an assurance on that point, because it will be of great assistance to local authorities concerned.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea said he would like to see a figure unconnected with political activities associated with Civil Defence. This is no criticism of the right hon. Gentleman, but I would like to see a Minister, or junior Minister, entirely committed to the task. I think it is a task which will be increasingly complex and, I am sorry to say, one that will become increasingly important, and on those lines progress will be made in the future. I am well aware, as is the right hon. Gentleman, that there are many former military chiefs of Anti-Aircraft Defence available in this country whose knowledge would be of very great assistance to him in his Department and I hope he will take some cognisance of that. I make no criticism of the gallant gentleman whose services are at present at the right hon. Gentleman's disposal, but I do not

think his military service was based in any way on service in this country during the last war, where a great deal of experience was to be had.
Reference has been made to the Civil Defence Staff College. I have heard nothing but praise for the way in which training is going on at that establishment, but I think we have to go a little further. Like the hon. Member for Sparkbrook, I do not want to see conscription for Civil Defence, but I think we have to go a little further than the purely instructional kind of training. I think we have to go a good deal further along the lines of getting together a basis of Civil Defence cadre. I refer to the way in which activities might break out and, from what I have seen on the military side—about which I hope to say something on Wednesday—there is no chance at all that the Regular Services will have a considerable amount of personnel to deal with civilian difficulties. Therefore it is imperative that Civil Defence should be self-supporting in essence, and I would like to see this conception of a mobile Civil Defence column, which seems a very sound one, developed, and a Civil Defence cadre made a regular and not a voluntary element in our Civil Defence Service.
Reference has been made to equipment. This, like all other aspects of Civil Defence, is patchy. In some quarters there is plenty of equipment and places where training can be carried out, but in other parts of the country there is little equipment and halls available for training are not there. The right hon. Gentleman should review that situation, because it is quite pointless to call on people to volunteer for this service if we have not the equipment and places where training can be carried out.
Lastly, I wish to refer to the publicity for this service. I should here declare my interest. In such leisure hours as remain to me when I am not here, I try to earn a penny or two in advertising. My attention has been drawn—and from the recruiting results I think it is only my attention that has been drawn—to the posters which are being produced under the auspices of the right hon. Gentleman. I do not think that these posters are in themselves effective, that they are obtaining recruits or that they are based upon any particular basic appeal. In colour


they might be suitable for the coming jubilee activities of the Socialist Party but as recruiting instruments for Civil Defence, they fall very far short of the mark.
That is not primarily the fault of the people who were given the directive to produce these masterpieces; it is primarily due to the policy of the Government, which has unquestionably been a policy of soft pedalling. There have been quite good arguments in justification of that policy of soft pedalling up to now, but the arguments that are taking place in Korea are conclusive arguments for a rapid change in that policy.
We on this side of the House are prepared to assist the right hon. Gentleman all we can but we want a clear directive and a clear indication that the Government mean business in this matter. I am not entirely at one with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea in his suggestion that parades and demonstrations would be effective. A demonstration of the Government's intentions and their will to get the people together in self defence would be the most effective demonstration. I would urge the right hon. Gentleman, in his reply, to give us an indication that there is to be an acceleration in the tempo of his Civil Defence policy

5.12 p.m.

Mrs. Braddock: No one deplores more than I do having to take part in a discussion of this sort because I feel that the need for Civil Defence should have departed long ago. We ought never to be in the position of having once again to go through the whole business which we have had to go through previously, and of being put in jeopardy and in fear—because there is no doubt that we are putting ordinary men and women, and particularly women and children, in fear.
Some of us who had the opportunity of dealing with Civil Defence during the last war in an active capacity saw some of the difficulties and some of the omissions of the Civil Defence organisation during that period. I was in Civil Defence for the whole six years and was out in every air raid in the Liverpool area, whether during the day or night. One of the difficulties I noted was the fact that people immediately moved from where they were, to the place which they

thought would be the safest. The position of the Civil Defence services and of those trained to deal with Civil Defence problems was jeopardised by the mass emigration of people along the roads, with the result that roads were completely packed and Civil Defence vehicles were unable to move along them.
That was mainly because very little provision for protection was made in the homes of the people themselves. I am certain that when there is a raid people would rather stay in their homes than go into mass shelters, where they are congregated together. I learned from them that no provision had been made for protection in their homes, where they would far sooner have stayed rather than take their children out of bed in the early hours of the morning and get them out on to the roads, to move them either into shelters or to the outskirts of the industrial areas.
We had some bad times in Liverpool, and as a result of those experiences I would say that that is one of the matters which those concerned with shelters ought to be considering—finding some way of making as safe shelter provision as possible inside each home. Dispersal is much better than having people congregated together. When a shelter full of people is hit, many more persons are killed than would be the case if a small locality area was affected in an area of houses.
Are the organisations dealing with shelters thinking about this matter? I agree that it would be more expensive, but we have to consider whether human lives or money are at stake. Serious consideration should be given to the possibility of making shelter provision in a room, or by building an addition to the premises of those people who happen to live in their own homes. That would be difficult in huge blocks of tenements such as we have in the industrial areas, but in those cases, provision could be made, communal shelters could be provided. Many such shelters have not been demolished because of the policy of the Home Office in not allowing certain shelters to be cleared away unless they were a public nuisance.
Secondly, and most important, I found a total lack of topographical knowledge-on the part of the people who had to deal with casualties. It is a peculiar fact


that very few people know the topography of their own areas. They may know the streets along which they go day by day to get to and from their homes but the majority of people are totally ignorant of the surrounding area and of the alternative ways of getting to places. If the Civil Defence organisation and the local authorities want to begin some work and to attract people into the service one of the things they ought to do is to arrange classes on topography so that those people who are to be ambulance, fire engine, or first-aid drivers will know how to get to places quickly if the area in which they are to operate happens to be dislocated and they have to find a way entirely different from the customary one.
I spent my first two years in Civil Defence driving an ambulance. I was called upon to direct people who had lived in Liverpool all their lives and who had not the remotest idea of the places to which they were called upon to go. These are simple matters about which those who are training do not perhaps think, being intent on learning to deal scientifically with the effects of a bombing attack, etc. They forget the fundamental points which mean so much at a time when none wants to get out to a job. That was a very important matter in the last war, and I hope that the Home Secretary will take note of it, and that when the local authorities are asked to do something about preparation for Civil Defence, one of the things they will do is to get those people who are to drive the vehicles to acquire some knowledge of the area in which they reside.
Thirdly, there is the question of the black-out. The warden service had perhaps the most difficulty or spent the most time in dealing with black-out infringements. Here, again, we are dealing with a matter in which simple preliminary precautions could be suggested. Here is one of the difficulties in connection with the black-out which I discovered as a result of my experiences. One noticed a slight chink of light that could be seen round the top and the side of a window or an inability to cover the area between the top of the curtain and the top of the window. These are small but important matters, but they take up much

of the time of people who have been trained to do a certain job and who have to divert their energies to deal with smaller matters.
It might be suggested to local authorities that, in the building of new houses there should be, between the top of the window and the top of the curtain, a covering pelmet of wood under which the curtain could go, so that there would be no possibility of light escaping from the top of the window and down the side. The difficulty was not that of getting the black-out material but the peculiar construction of house windows that made it impossible to cover the space between the top of the window and the top of the curtain.
I should like to refer to equipment. I do not want to talk about highly scientific matters. My business was concerned with people who were in difficulty, and the people who had to carry out the instructions of those who were trained. During the war the gas equipment, in which we had to drive an ambulance, was the most gruesome thing which could be found as well as the most awkward to deal with. One could hardly drive an ambulance when dressed up in this gas equipment. Surely there should be something easier to work in than the oilskin stuff presented to workers in Civil Defence during the last war. I should imagine that by now, those dealing with these matters have found some simplified form of protection.
There have been suggestions that people are not coming forward to join the Civil Defence organisation. The reason is they are sick and tired of the whole business. They had enough of it during the last war, and are hoping against hope that nothing will happen. The best way to prevent anything happening is to be fully protected and prepared to deal with anything that does occur. If we adopt some way of getting in touch with the people in their homes, particularly the women who are concerned about their children, and give them simple instructions—not the elaborate instructions that trained personnel need—as to what steps should be taken to protect themselves and their children, I am certain there will be more response than has been met with so far. The more methods of protection that there are


the less possibility there is of anything happening.
I believe that modern weapons are only useful if they can create panic. If we have defence plans and schemes, which prevent panic, it will be to the general advantage. One of the great difficulties in the last war was the panic that would happen when an air-raid had been going on for three, four or five nights in succession. By the sixth or seventh night the Civil Defence workers had the utmost difficulty in calming people, and stopping them moving out in masses as they did at the commencement of the war.
While we are discussing these matters, we are bound to touch on the scientific aspects, and the general training necessary in connection with them, but do not let us forget the people with whom those who have been trained have to be in contact. We should not leave them to the very last moment, as was the case during the last war. They were left until something happened, and then we wanted to train them. Let us take steps in a simple way to give them instructions, and the best way of doing this is to see that they are protected as near as possible to where they live. We want to avoid the necessity of moving them out far distances.
The last point with which I want to deal is the question of industry. In the circular that was issued I did not see any reference to industrial organisations taking part in the recruitment. If anything happens the life of the community has got to go on, and the industrial organisations ought to be included and their advice asked in anything with reference to Civil Defence. The industrial organisations ought to be able to arrange their business so as to have the least possible interference with the general local authority schemes of defence.
Those are my main points. They may not sound very important in the scheme of training, but my experience has taught me that those are the things that actually matter. If the people who cannot be trained because they have to keep to their ordinary daily job—particularly the women, who have to take their children to school, get their babies up and put them to bed again—can be kept calm, then we shall go a long way to ensuring that our Civil Defence organisation is as perfect as possible.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. Sidney Marshall: I am sure the nation will be very glad that we have been able to arrange this Debate, and we are also grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for the information he was able to give us this afternoon. This information should have been passed on a long time ago. The Bill concerning Civil Defence was passed 18 months ago, and when the proposition regarding the resuscitation of the Civil Defence force was put out, it met with a considerable amount of enthusiasm generally, and meetings were held over the country by the county and county borough authorities. A great deal of enthusiasm was displayed. I imagine that most of them, like my own county, went back to their various districts with a great deal of determination that we should make a new set-up in Civil Defence which would be as good at least as the old one was, and if possible better.
The Government have let us down. Months and months went by and we heard nothing from them. The people who had volunteered were constantly asking us when we were going to do something. My postbag has been filled for months now with letters from individuals, who had volunteered in a great burst of enthusiasm to do something for Civil Defence. They have heard nothing. I am sure that the Home Secretary will agree that we stepped off rather on the wrong foot, because the much-heralded start-off—I do not like to use the vernacular "flop" in this connection—certainly misfired a little. That was owing to some miscalculation on the part of the Government in regard to the launching of the scheme.
I feel that at that time we should have done much better had some further consideration been given to it. The Home Secretary will remember that when he was asked, he agreed to postpone his broadcast in order that a little more time might be given to those people whose duty it would be to carry out these functions. That two weeks' postponement was very good, but it is almost unnecessary for me to point out here that for a long time now we have received very little. Even the circulars which the Home Office have issued to councils have contained very little which could help or guide us, and what we are in need of


very badly now is more direct guidance and assistance. I know it seems strange that I, as one on this side of the House, should be asking for directions, having suffered from too much direction during the past five years, but this time we want direction and guidance in this matter.
We are very grateful that the Under-Secretary was able to give us the information that he did, and what he said has rather reassured us that they have not been letting the side down. We were not expecting that they were, and we knew that a great deal of new technical information and a great deal of research had to be done in regard to what Civil Defence duties there might be in the years that lie ahead of us. It is true that we could not expect to start from where we left off. We knew that that would not be the be-all and end-all of the new Civil Defence. We still wait for some much more mature directives to the county councils which they can pass on to the district councils. We have got as far as the county Civil Defence committees having decided how much delegation they will give to the district councils. I hope that delegation will be carried out to the fullest extent so that the district councils will have the satisfaction of knowing that they can carry out all these duties without any interference from the county itself or from the central Government.
We have certainly fallen down on recruiting, but I am not afraid because of that. We have fallen down because we have not been able to inform sufficiently about their duties those who want to join the Civil Defence Corps. That has been a common complaint. I am sure that when we are able to be much more definite and to make a definite appeal, we shall not lack recruits. One point about recruitment which I wish to discuss concerns the sections. The Under-Secretary emphasised that Class "Z" reservists are not able to become members of the Civil Defence Corps. Later he said that it was possible that some such men as these might be recruited for the rescue and pioneer services.
I hope that the Home Secretary will deal with this matter in his reply to the Debate. It is in these two sections that we find, and shall continue to find, the greatest difficulty in recruitment. It is

very heavy work and it is not attractive, like some of the other jobs. It is in these sections that we shall need full strength in the local organisations. If the Home Secretary, either today or later, is able to make some suggestion about getting Class "Z" reservists to join the pioneer and rescue sections, that will be most helpful. I will not suggest that some incentive should be given, but I repeat that the work in these sections is difficult and unattractive. From our experience in the last war—I expect that it will be similar if we are called into operation again—it is clear that there will be a big demand for the services of these men. I hope that some further directions will be given to local authorities about recruiting.
The position of women might be made a little more plain. The contribution of women, through their work in the W.V.S., has been immeasurable. I understand that the W.V.S., as such, is not part of the Civil Defence Corps. If women want to become members of the Corps, they must join in the ordinary way, though they can still remain with the W.V.S. That point might be clarified and perhaps some closer co-ordination might be brought about by allowing members of the W.V.S. to be regarded as members of the Corps. I do not know whether that would be possible. We are bound to get co-operation, but I think that we could have more co-ordination.
The hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble) mentioned expenditure. Some general principles have been given by which we are to regulate our expenditure, but I, for one, am still in the dark as to exactly how far we can go. One hon. Member talked about an incendiary hut which an authority was not able to buy. If my authority had wished to purchase a hut at a cost of £130, I should have thought we would have been able to do it forthwith. The exact method of financing the whole of the Corps should be explained in more detail.
The local districts which will carry out the work delegated to them by the county districts are not satisfied about their position if they incur expenditure. Direction should be given about what money they can spend on special officials in the district council who carry out the administrative work. I do not think that any separately


paid posts are required at the moment—certainly none of the highly paid posts—but there is no doubt that a lot of time will have to be given, as training develops, to the administration of the work even in the district councils themselves. We cannot expect that work to be done entirely voluntarily. It is possible that the whole time of an official might be devoted to Civil Defence work. In that way, a paid official of the council would be seconded to Civil Defence, at the expense of his own work for the council.
I feel rather strongly about the Metropolitan area. I am interested in a county which was split into two parts during the last war. I need not point out how difficult work becomes when one is only half of a whole and one has to consider two different headquarters in the same county. We fear that that arrangement does not lead to really successful work. Perhaps the Home Secretary might be able to give some advice to the Home Counties so that we can get the maximum result from our recruiting and training.
We might have been told earlier how far we had gone in basic training. That point has been left severely alone. I understand that specialist training, which the Under-Secretary said that we should hear about on Wednesday, must be given at a later stage; but we could have been told something about recruiting and basic training earlier. I hope that the Home Secretary will give us more details about the numbers we ought to recruit. One appreciates that he has set a very low target. I assure him, on behalf of most districts, that we should like to exceed that figure very much. Obviously, it is the intention of the Ministry and the Government to give us more explicit directions so that we can go ahead and recruit in a sensible fashion.
I could not help thinking this afternoon, when the hon. Member for Harrow, East displayed those wonderful recruiting posters, that one has the feeling that the enthusiasm which these posters are likely to engender is about equal to the size of the posters themselves, because they are very small indeed. It is not merely posters which will bring recruits. I, personally, believe that if the Home Secretary can give us some encouragement on these points which I have mentioned, he will be able to feel that the districts and the country generally will respond very readily,

despite the fact that it has been said that the people are tired of Civil Defence. Well, they have not got to be tired of it, and when they are appealed to they will not be tired, but will really jump to it and make a great surge forward in order to be ready for whatever eventualities may occur.

5.41 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross: I have listened with great interest to the speeches made, and I do not intend to keep the House long, although I would like, as other hon. Members have done, to say a few words about my own personal experiences and about some of the lessons that may be learned from them.
In the first place, it would not be out of the way if I made some reference to recruitment and suggested that one of the reasons why it tends to be slow is because there is a quite natural, healthy and reasonable tendency on the part of the population not to wish to believe that these measures are necessary so soon after the war. Indeed, if any calamity develops, it would be essential for everyone, the nation as a whole, to expect that the Government in power had done everything they could to prevent war, that whatever mixture of firmness and patience was necessary had been applied, even if that meant almost unending patience, because the nation and the ordinary citizen believe that there could be nothing very much worse than total war of the type which they have read and heard about.
When France fell, there was a great stimulus applied to recruitment generally, because for the first time, after the period which has been described as the "phoney war" had ended, our people realised that they stood alone, and there was a great upsurge of feeling and determination to grasp the nettle and to show that, whatever else might befall them, they would not fail their neighbours in this dire necessity. I remember myself working in the streets day by day, together with the Conservative agent of my division, recruiting personnel. It was not an arrangement that we had come to by forethought; it was a spontaneous and natural happening. The response was excellent. It was good because, for the first time, we were able to tell people what they should do, how they should go about it, and satisfy them


that the need was urgent, whereas in the years before they had not been able to believe that this was so.
In a place like Stoke-on-Trent, we were not exposed to any heavy attacks at all. Perhaps 30 or 35 times bombs were dropped upon the city, though never in any such way as Manchester or Liverpool experienced. The enemy simply peeled off one or two, or, at the most, 10 bombers—and only on one occasion were there 10—to keep us quiet while they turned their real attention to places which they felt to be of greater importance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) will remember that we were together on one occasion during an attack, and when we went to see where the damage had been done we found a pathetic sight in the bewilderment of a poor old woman whose house had been set on fire by incendiaries, and who could not understand why it should have to be hers. Those of us who went on with our work in the city discovered later that even a few explosive bombs could create very serious damage and disorganisation, but nothing can shock the morale of the people if they are determined and united to resist anything that attacks them, so long as they are satisfied, as a united people, that everything has been done to prevent war and prevent it with honour.
We must ask ourselves questions under three headings—protection, rescue and treatment. What kind of a war are we likely to have to fight at any foreseeable time in the future? For myself, I cannot imagine that atomic bombs will be used, either by us or against us. That does not mean that they will not be used, but that I do not personally believe it to be likely. Indeed, if it is so, as a medical man I would have to write the world off as completely insane, and, if we reach that phase of insanity, there would be very great difficulties facing us. We ourselves in our islands may be exposed to very severe attack and damage, but that does not mean that we cannot defend ourselves or cannot resist attack: nor does it mean that we are not capable of retaliating with such force as we can command against anyone who might be prepared, at any time, and from any direction, to move against us.
What sort of thoughts are coming to our minds in these circumstances? It is fairly apparent that the kind of atomic bomb that fell on Hiroshima was not very much more destructive than some of the terrifying weapons which Germany had devised to fling at us, or those from which they had to suffer from us. I feel hot and bothered when I think about these things, and I try not to visualise them, for the thought of 30,000 or 40,000 people burning to death in one night is far from pleasant to contemplate, but that is the picture which is created.
I do not believe there is any Power in the world that can attack us by means of bombing aeroplanes and get away with it in view of the way in which world forces are aligned today. Yet if we are to think in terms of atomic bombs and guided missiles, we must be prepared for serious damage where they fall, and particularly from the heat and fire generated from them. Therefore, at the scene of such experiences, we would not be able to expect to bring about effective rescue promptly or easily, but in the zones round about all our technique of rescue must be available, and must be available more expeditiously than ever it was in the last war. It is in reference to these two zones that I would like to say a few words.
I found that we entered the last war, perhaps naturally, with rather mistaken and old-fashioned ideas; we did not know what had to come, and our ideas were proved wrong. We also held on to our ideas for too long, even when we knew that they were mistaken. Medical men were kept on reserve when I thought they should have been sent to every scene of an explosion. I think that at least one doctor should have been present even where only small explosions have taken place causing very few casualties. If there is no medical man present on the site of an explosion, I think we should insist on every casualty being sent, not to a first-aid station, but at once to a hospital, if there is one within reasonable distance.
In one explosion in which I was involved, and in which a number of people were killed and about 40 injured, those who, like myself, thought they had not been hurt later discovered that they had partially collapsed vertebrae. This was only a small bomb of probably half a ton or less. Such cases should all be sent to hospital where they can have a few hours'


rest with their clothes off, and after they have recovered from the effects of shock or blast they should be examined by X-ray and then, if they are found to be all right, sent home.
I feel that the whole system of mobile units which we tried to use for some time in the last war was quite mistaken. Nothing can properly be done for people on the site of an explosion; it only creates confusion. When a mobile unit arrived on the scene of the explosion to which I referred, I was under the debris instead of being in charge of it, and time was wasted in the most foolish way by an unskilled medical man trying to stitch up somebody's nose by the light of an electric torch while 30 or 35 other people were lying in the road in real need of prompt medical attention and removal to hospital.

On the question of rescue, we found that there was some jealousy between those who had been trained and wore uniforms and those who had only been partially trained, but who felt that they also could help. In the mining area in which I live, there were thousands of people expert in burrowing under debris and rescuing people, because any miner who has worked underground for several years knows how to burrow under debris and bring people out. When explosions have occurred and bombs have fallen, I have seen strong men literally crying because they were not allowed to help. I hope that in future we shall have a better liaison between those in Civil Defence who wear uniform and those who do not wear uniform, but who have a great knowledge and expert experience behind them, and want to assist.

I feel that if we are to make Civil Defence worth while, every street should have its unit, and that, if it is a long street, it should have two units. I am speaking on the hypothesis that the world will fall into this dreadful error of war, although I hope that hypothesis will never be realised, as, I am sure, does everyone else. But should it happen, then everybody must be prepared to help everybody else. Every man and woman not in the Fighting Forces, and even adolescents, should know that their neighbours are literally themselves, and they should be prepared to help in every way possible.

There is never any panic when people believe in the cause for which they are

fighting. If this nation believes in the struggle, there will be no dearth of people coming forward, but if the nation were divided, that would be a bad thing. The essential thing is for people to be assured that the greatest patience is exercised in negotiations in an endeavour to prevent a world war. The cheapest way of defending the civilian population is to see that war does not break out and involve this country, or, if it breaks out elsewhere, to see that the available machinery provided by the United Nations is used and that the war is brought to an end at the earliest possible moment, and that there is never another world war.

With regard to treatment, there is very little I need say. It depends on the kind of attack made. I suppose that in the last war, more civilians were killed on the roads than through direct enemy action. As a matter of fact, the numbers were not dissimilar. If, however, we were faced with another kind of offensive, either by the inhalation of radio-active substances, by the infestation of disease—an eventuality I very much doubt, because I do not believe it to be feasible—or by the dropping of atomic bombs, then we would have to be prepared for greater numbers of casualties than in the last war. I want to assure my right hon. Friend that if some of the horrors about which we have been talking, and which all of us hate so much, were to befall this country, and the people were given the assurances I have mentioned, we should find that they would resist any aggressor in such a way as to make it impossible for the war to last very long and to ensure that victory would be on our side.

5.56 p.m.

Mr. McAdden: I have listened with interest to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), and I am sure that all hon. Members agree with him when he says that should such a testing time come upon this country, we shall find no difficulty in securing large numbers of volunteers anxious to play their part; but it is very little comfort to the Home Secretary to know that when the danger is immediately upon us the volunteers will be forthcoming. If Civil Defence is to be effective, they must be forthcoming now. Consequently, I feel that what is lacking in this matter is a real sense of urgency.
We on this side of the House are prepared to assist the Government in awakening the people of this country to the sense of danger which faces them. We should not just hope that should the danger materialise, the recruits will be forthcoming. Even if they are forthcoming, they will be untrained, and there will be no time in which to train them. We are prepared to give all possible support to the Government in an attempt to awaken the people to a sense of urgency, but our willingness is surely worthy of being received in the proper spirit. When we seek to awaken the people of this country to those dangers and to the importance of every effort possible being made now to build up our Civil Defence services, it is not very pleasant to hear ourselves described as "baying like hounds at the smell of blood."
The time has come when the people of this country ought to be awakened by all Members of Parliament. It is unfortunate that on the very day that we are discussing this question of Civil Defence, there should appear upon the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. S. O. Davies) a Question in which he asks the Prime Minister frankly to inform the people that there is no means of protecting them against atom bombs. If such nonsense is to be found in the heads of Members of Parliament, it is no wonder that such ideas are gaining a certain amount of ground among the people of the country. Surely we are entitled to expect a somewhat higher standard than that from Members of Parliament.
I feel that it is the duty of hon. Members on both sides of the House to pay a tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for the excellent description he gave us of the very careful groundwork which the Government have done in the preparation of Civil Defence. I am sure it is a consolation to all to know that, despite the fact that we have not heard much about it, a great deal of work and a great deal of research has been going on, and that in a few days' time we shall receive a quantity of literature which will be used in an attempt to inform the people of the protection which will be available to them. We were glad to hear this; but I am sure the Under-Secretary will forgive me if I say, as other hon. Members have said,

"It has been a long time a'coming," and if we feel—as I certainly feel—that a sense of urgency might have been aroused more easily, and earlier, if there had been more push about this before.
I mix with members of a number of local authorities in this country. I was speaking to my own town clerk a day or so ago and I asked his views about what kind of things ought to be said about Civil Defence. He told me—and I am sure others will have told other hon. Members—that what was needed more than anything else was to awaken people to the gravity of the situation. I do not want to try to instill panic amongst the people, but I think that hon. Members on all sides of the House will be wanting in public duty unless they tell people about the gravity of the situation at the present hour.
While I realise how easy it is to try to play down and to placate people's fears, I think it is necessary for us to be quite frank with the people of this country and to appeal to them now, in their own interests, to rally in those numbers which the urgency of the situation ought to demand to build up the Civil Defence services of this country. I believe that with the co-operation of all sides of the House, and given the right kind of leadership, we shall get those people. We have not got them now. We shall get them if the problem is tackled with sufficient drive; and it is most important that they should be usefully and actively employed and not just be recruited.
Those who remember the early days of Civil Defence in London during what has been described this afternoon as the "phoney war," will remember the derogatory remarks passed about the Civil Defence and Fire Services, and the suggestions that were made that they spent most of their time playing cards. The time came when nobody had praise high enough for those boys. But it was wrong that they were not kept more constantly active than they were. People should have been given a job of work to do and a feeling that there was something important to get on with. Let us have some kind of drive and organisation in the Civil Defence service. Let us see that when the people are there, they are actively and usefully employed, and are not just large numbers of recruits which exist only on paper.
I was interested in the information given by the Under-Secretary on the division of the population into certain groups. I was a little worried when he said—if I understood him correctly—that, in his view, people over the age of 40 should regard themselves as being primarily available for Civil Defence duty. If he is right—and he may well be—it is important that that should be proclaimed from the housetops, because that was not done in the last war. I am sure the Under-Secretary will agree that there are many men who served in the Home Guard during the last war who would like to serve in it again if there should be another war. If they are to be told that the man over 40 is, primarily, one who should be in Civil Defence, that ought to be said now. If we want them in the Civil Defence service, and not in the service they would otherwise seek to enter, it will be a long time before they get into Civil Defence unless it is made clear to them now.
I do not wish to take up too much of the time of the House because many hon. Members wish to speak, including those representing the country from which my ancestors came. I am sure they would like to say something about Scotland. I should like to hear from whoever is to reply to this Debate, some clear indication of what financial restrictions are being imposed on the efforts of local authorities in building up their Civil Defence organisation. It may be that they have been told they can spend as much as they like, provided the job they perform is a good one. I rather doubt it. I should like to have that information in order that we may judge whether, in their assessment of the economic needs of the country, the Government have placed undue emphasis on the needs of Civil Defence or over-due emphasis on other aspects.
Another question is whether there has been any change in the view of the Government on the need to disperse the population in the event of a conflict, which none of us wish to see. We know what was the policy last time. Is it to be the same kind of policy next time? Will the same areas of this country have the same function? If not, are they going to be told now, or later, what their function is to be concerning dispersal? These are problems which might be considered usefully now, and on which local authorities ought to be given information.
If hon. Members on both sides of the House will play their part, not only here but in their constituencies, in arousing the people of this country to the sense of great urgency which ought to prevail, then recruits, so far conspicuous by their absence, will be forthcoming in greater numbers, and will give a greater sense of security to the Government in the conduct of our affairs.

6.6 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden) made a certain reference to Scotland, and I want to begin my remarks with some questions about Civil Defence in Scotland. The right hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd), who introduced the Debate in a very moderate and very reasonable speech, mentioned that today he had received a telegram from Edinburgh asking exactly what was the policy regarding shelters.
Surely, if that is the state of affairs at this time, if the capital city of Scotland does not know what proposals the Government have in mind about shelters, there is obviously something very much wrong with the state of Civil Defence in this country. What is the Government's policy towards shelters? I presume shelters have to be built by building trade workers. Is it proposed that the state of emergency has now become so alarming that the Government are to advise the City of Edinburgh and the City of Glasgow upon a policy for air-raid shelters? What kind of air-raid shelters are to be constructed? Where is the labour to be obtained for these shelters? Is it proposed to call up into the Army, for other services, the only people who can make these air-raid shelters? Are we going to take away from the deplorable housing needs of Scotland people who are building houses? Are we going to stop building houses and put these people to build air-raid shelters?

Mr. Woodburn: Is that what my hon. Friend is proposing—that we should stop building houses?

Mr. Hughes: No, I am not proposing that. I am asking a question about the Government's policy, and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) knows very well what my attitude is.
There is another aspect of air-raid precautions. What is the policy on dispersal in Scotland? I put a Question to the Secretary of State for Scotland a few weeks ago; I asked which were the evacuation areas, which were the neutral areas and which were the areas to which the population of Glasgow and Edinburgh were to be dispersed. I received a little document which was marked "Confidential," but which nevertheless gave certain information about dispersal and evacuation. I gathered from this document that an area of Ayrshire is to be the dispersal area. Presumably we have to be prepared to recognise our part of Ayrshire as a dispersal area but—and I do not want to over-state the case—we simply have not the houses in Ayrshire to take the 10,000 or 20,000 or 100,000 or 250,000 people who, presumably, might have to be evacuated from Glasgow.

Sir William Darling: The hon. Member refers to Ayrshire as a dispersal area. Is it not, in fact, a reception area?

Mr. Hughes: That is so. In Ayrshire there is no room for that number of people; so that we have proposals to remove people to a county where there is no room for them. I do not want to go further into the strategical position, but I would point out that in Ayrshire there is one of the largest munition areas in the country. We are proposing to remove the population of Glasgow to an area which could not possibly cope with them. It is ridiculous to imagine that it could.
We have a right to have some answer to the question: What is the policy for Edinburgh? Do the Government contemplate building air-raid shelters? If the Government have any policy of building air-raid shelters, how do they propose to obtain the men and material to carry out that policy? As I shall point out later, according to some of our greatest authorities there is only one safe policy in the event of war, and that is to remove the population underground. I ask hon. Members to realise what kind of economic burden that would impose upon the country. Is it possible? Is it practicable? If not, we are left to assume that there are very inadequate remedies, very inadequate proposals and policies, for dealing with the problem in Scotland.

I shudder to think what is likely to happen in the event of an atom bomb dropping in Glasgow, with its crowded tenements, with the worst slums in the world; and I cannot see the local authority of Glasgow, in any conceivable space of time, being able to produce any practical policy of air-raid precautions likely to give anyone in that city any sense of security at all.
The right hem. Member for King's Norton referred, in an aside, to a Socialist town council which did not help with air-raid precautions during the preparations before the last war. I was a member on a Socialist town council and the position I adopted was this: it is the duty of everyone, whether they agree with war or not, to help the innocent victims of war. Certainly we did our utmost throughout the war to help the victims of war, whether they were evacuees from Glasgow, or Poles or German prisoners-of-war. We did our utmost to help to succour the wounded and help the distressed. That, I believe, is the outlook and hope of all of us.
I thought that in his desire to avoid panic the right hon. Member tended to under-estimate the grim facts of what is likely to happen in the event of a raid with atom bombs. No one can say that I have not tried to warn the House on this matter. Three years ago, I remember, we had a Debate on Defence, when it was considered almost indelicate and indecent even to mention the atom bomb. Now we are agreed that the atom bomb is here. This Debate is just as important as the Debate which is to take place on Wednesday. This is a Defence Debate, and the defence of the civil population, of the people in the crowded tenements of Glasgow, Manchester and London, is as important and as essential as anything which may be discussed on Wednesday when we shall have prominent strategists discussing the movement of armies and general strategy throughout the world. After all, if our defence does not give protection to the great majority of people in the country, then surely it is no defence at all.
What is the problem that we have to face? The right hon. Gentleman made a reference to the Dean of Canterbury who, I presume, made a speech yesterday about rocks melting 60 miles away when an atom bomb is dropped. I have not read


the Dean's speech. I do not profess to agree with him. I do not even agree with the Archbishop of Canterbury, but I do agree with the Archbishop of York who, a fortnight ago, urged the Government to consider anew the whole question of atomic warfare. The Archbishop of York adopts a fundamentally different point of view from my own. I believe I am a greater Christian than is the Archbishop of York. He puts forward the view that atomic warfare has now become so dangerous that it is time the Government made a new approach to the United Nations Security Council in order to see whether new negotiations could take place.
I should be far more convinced that the Government were acting on the right lines if they supported the Archbishop of York and said, "We realise that the dropping of the atom bomb in any part of the world would be a universal catastrophe and it is up to all of us, whatever different ideologies we may hold, to do everything possible to re-open negotiations in order that this problem might be placed on an international footing."

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: The hon. Member says he would support the plea of the Archbishop of York. I hope he would also support the plea made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition on exactly the same issue.

Mr. Hughes: I make no apology for saying that I agree with the Leader of the Opposition on this point and that I believe direct contact should be made. I concede that point entirely.
The right hon. Member for King's Norton talked about stirrup pumps and buckets and, when he did so, I thought he was minimising the danger. If the Dean of Canterbury made a mistake in overemphasis on the one side, I believe the right hon. Gentleman made a mistake of under-emphasis on the other side.

Mr. Lloyd: I am sorry to interrupt again, but I must point out that when I was discussing stirrup pumps I was dealing only with the menace of incendiary bombs. I was not suggesting that one could deal with atom bombs by means of stirrup pumps. What I was suggesting was that when the Government had made the requisite research, they might be able to produce other detailed methods of attacking this new menace.

Mr. Hughes: I am glad that that point has been cleared up. It is quite fallacious to argue as if the incendiary bomb, to which the right hon. Member referred, is in any way analogous to the atom bomb. As I understand it, the atom bomb is more analogous to a small earthquake.
I ask the Ministers concerned to deal with that aspect of the matter. I wonder whether it is realised that if the atom bomb were dropped on the cities of this country, we should be faced with a universal catastrophe. We know what happened when atom bombs were dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. We can find that out from an official report. In the light of that, and of the catastrophe that would follow if atom bombs were dropped on our cities, I submit that what has been said in this Debate has been largely irrelevant.
Let us forget about the Dean of Canterbury. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Well, I have never met the Dean of Canterbury. The Dean of Canterbury moves in a different stratosphere. I do not deal with deans and bishops. Let us, instead, turn to what can be considered the views of an expert. What about Lord Trenchard? Lord Trenchard is regarded as one of the greatest authorities on aerial warfare, and in another place he made this assertion:
Is there any doubt whatever in any man's mind that the atom bomb could probably destroy anything from 10 million to 20 million people in a month? I am not overstating the case"—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): Were those remarks made in another place?

Mr. Hughes: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If they were made in this Session, it is out of order to quote them. If they were made in a previous Session, it would be permissible to quote them.

Mr. Hughes: This statement was made in a previous Session.

Sir W. Darling: Can we be told the date when it was made? I think that would be useful.

Brigadier Head: It is my definite opinion that it was made in this Session.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If that is so, it is out of order.

Mr. Hughes: My definite opinion is different—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that if the hon. Member were to tell us the date, that would solve the problem.

Mr. Hughes: I have the date here, but if you will allow me, Sir, to finish the quotation, then I can look up the date.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think we had better have it the other way round.

Mr. Hughes: I do not see why the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head), who is so anxious to get the latest information on military matters, should be so anxious to suppress—

Brigadier Head: I am not anxious.

Mr. Hughes: Let us agree that Lord Trenchard went on in another place to say that it was his estimate that an atom bomb—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman really must try to find the date when that statement was made. He may not quote from a speech made in another place in this Session. He has already quoted the Archbishop of York. He must remember that the Archbishop of York is also a Member of another place, and his speeches there during this Session may not be quoted here now.

Mr. Hughes: My memory is quite good, and it is against the memory of the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: May I assist the hon. Gentleman by saying that the Archbishop of York said the same thing outside of another place?

Mr. Hughes: I am very grateful to the hon. Member for assisting. The main point is that Lord Trenchard gave it as his opinion that in the first month of an atom war there would be at least 10 million and possibly 20 million casualties.

Sir W. Darling: In which country?

Mr. Hughes: I am prevented from quoting what Lord Trenchard said, but I can give the hon. Member the full facts later. I submit that, if Western Europe is to be faced with casualties of anything between 10 million and 20 million, all

these air-raid precautions that we have heard so much about today are infinitesimal for dealing with this great problem. If a city like London or a city like Glasgow or Manchester were to have two or three atom bombs dropped on it, that would make nonsense of all the defence strategy, and make comparative nonsense of all the air-raid precautions.

Sir W. Darling: So what?

Mr. Hughes: Why should the hon. Member answer "So what?" If the hon. Member waits, he may have an opportunity of answering my argument, and I shall listen to him patiently.
I have been trying to find out whether Lord Trenchard was exaggerating a little, and I turned to a book by one of the greatest experts on modern warfare, Captain Liddell Hart. Captain Liddell Hart wrote a book called "The Defence of the West." He said in it that Lord Trenchard's assumption of the possible casualties was reasonable and that 20 million killed would wipe out half the population of England or France or the whole population of Belgium and Holland combined.
So I want the House to look upon this matter in this way, and not as a matter to be dealt with merely by means of air-raid precautions as we had them in the last war. I want the House to look upon the matter in the light of the tremendous possibilities. I do not say for one moment that the people of this country should not do their very utmost to prepare so far as possible, but let us realise the tremendous catastrophe that will confront us if we go on in this way.
I want to quote from opinions in America. I think some hon. Members have recently had circularised a very interesting compilation of views called "The Atom Era" compiled by the New York "Nation." One thing said in it is:
There is a belief that our giant cities like New York, Philadelphia, Detroit, Chicago, and Los Angeles can be defended. They cannot.
If it is impossible to defend New York, Philadelphia, Detroit, Chicago and Los Angeles, how are we going to defend Manchester, Glasgow, London, and Oxford?
In the "New Statesman" a few weeks ago there was an article explaining that the B.29s were located somewhere near Oxford. If they are located near Oxford,


then I presume that it will be legitimate to regard Oxford as a place that may be bombed during the next war. If that is so, if we are to be faced with this mass destruction, then let us not talk in terms of stirrup pumps, let us not talk of sand, let us not even talk of air-raid shelters: let us face the fact that huge areas of this country will be uninhabitable, and that in face of all this our air-raid precautions that have been discussed today are more or less irrelevant.
If we are to face the reality of this, we have to keep out of war, and if we go to war with our eyes open, in face of all the warnings that are being given to us by the best-informed scientists all over the world, we are not defending the people of this country: we are helping to destroy, and acquiescing in destroying, the civilisation which has been built up with tremendous energy and care over hundreds of centuries.
I regard this Debate with great depression. I do not see that any reasonable policy is being brought forward, and this House must make up its mind to tell the Government to pursue a new line of policy. I therefore hope that this problem will be looked at in its proper perspective, and that it will be realised that, in spite of all our illusions, in an age of atomic warfare this country cannot be defended without a huge loss of our civilian population. The Americans realise that. Hon. Members may have read about a month ago a statement drawn up by 12 of the most eminent scientists, strategists and physicists in the universities of America, who said that the present policy of the United States in regard to atomic warfare must inevitably mean "the obliteration of our nearest ally"—and "our nearest ally" is us.
So, while I entirely agree that we should take every possible precaution to save wrecking, to help the suffering and to help the people who remain, let us not be under any delusion that, if we enter an atomic war, what we do can be by any means said to be a defence of this country.

6.32 p.m.

Mr. Charles Williams: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes) into the respective merits of himself, the Archbishop of York and the Dean of Canterbury. But I do think that one thing aligns his speech very closely with almost every other speech we have heard this

afternoon, and that is that, today, in Civil Defence we face a problem of immense magnitude and very great seriousness.
I have listened to a large number of the speeches made today, and I was particularly interested in what the Under-Secretary said about training the general staff. That was helpful, and I am sure that out of what was left from the last war, he has been able to build up a very good staff. But I assure him that no war has ever been won by a staff; not even the War Office has been able to win a war without soldiers. I, and I think a large number of other people feel seriously perturbed that the great difficulty which faces us today is not the lack of staff, or of exceedingly able people at the top, or any lack of will of either the Government or the Opposition to help in this matter. The great difficulty is that we have not been able to get anything like an adequate number of recruits. That is the only point upon which I wish to speak this afternoon.
If we are to get those recruits, it is not merely a question of appeals. I have a suspicion that the majority of our people are sick of appeals of every sort and kind, and I believe that the only way to deal with this is to put forward a simple proposition of what is expected, and to do everything possible to encourage local patriotism, especially where that has been so well demonstrated in the past. My experience is that that is exactly the reverse of what is being done at present. The Under-Secretary said that there were special areas of unusual character, and boroughs which do not come under the county council. I fully agree, but I believe he is being far too inelastic—if I may use the expression—in my particular area. A county council, wherever it may be, is an excellent body, but it handles villages and small towns of up to 10,000 or 20,000 people. Not even Devon County Council, which is admittedly by far the best county council in the country, has the experience needed to handle a great block of 90,000 people in a small congested area.
In Devon there are three adjacent towns agreed about one thing: that they do not want to be united, although for once in their history they were completely united on the fire service, and worked well together in the last war. They are completely separate units, with a great river north and south cutting them off from the


surrounding countryside, with a comparatively small bottle-neck, and the sea. As the Home Secretary may know, in the last war they were bombed very many times, and had a death-rate approximately double that of the average constituency. Nevertheless, they are completely separate units with a total population of over 90,000 people, and evacuation alone will put that figure up to well beyond 100,000. In the summer there is probably double that number. That is just one illustration to show how impossible it is for this to be worked from the local authority in Exeter, which is completely out of touch. It simply is not a practical proposition.
In the last war it was admitted that they had the highest standard of organisation, and the whole machinery is there, ready to go into action tomorrow, if only it is used in the way it has been used. I have no doubt that that simple illustration could be multiplied throughout the country. There is no feeling against being under the county council, but we know the sort of minutes they will get about expenditure, which are quite out of keeping with the defence of populations of 100,000. I naturally appeal for this particular area, although there must be many others, and I ask that this aspect should be carefully considered. Where there is in a comparatively small area, a big block of 80,000 or 90,000 people who have worked these schemes together before, and who have done it well, let them get on with it along the lines they know.
I realise as well as anyone that a greater danger faces us today, and that wider areas must be unified, but that must be done with some geographical knowledge and on some sort of population basis. I ask the Government, in dealing with this matter, to get on very much more speedily than they have done so far in letting the local authorities know what they are doing, to adopt an easier attitude, and not to think that a particular form of local authority such as a county council is necessarily right, but to try to use these smaller authorities so as quickly to get the largest number of people working a scheme.

6.39 p.m.

Mr. Blackburn: The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), in common, I think,

with every other hon. Member who has spoken except my hon. Friend the Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes), has undoubtedly supported the general proposals of the Government and has asked for a strengthening of our Civil Defence. In any remarks that I make on one limited subject—namely, atomic energy—I do not want to appear to be disagreeing with the general view of the House. I entirely accept the view that if war comes, we have to defend ourselves to the hilt, and that must include the most efficient Civil Defence possible. I say in all honesty that in my view there has been a considerable air of unreality about the speeches made today, and may I, with the greatest good will to the Under-Secretary, whom I admire very much, say that of his speech as well?
The general tendency of the Debate has been to decry, to some extent at any rate, the atomic bomb. From any point of view that is a very silly thing for anyone to do in this country. The right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) has pointed out, over and over again, that it is our superiority in respect of the atomic bomb that has so far been responsible for the whole of Europe not being overrun. The Russians have more tanks than we have and more aircraft than the Americans and ourselves combined, and immeasurably more men. It is in technical superiority, and, above all, in superiority in respect of atomic energy, that we are ourselves far ahead of them.
Another reason why it is silly to decry the atomic bomb is that it is contrary to the facts to do so. I hear that an atomic manual is coming out on Wednesday. I am glad to hear that. I would, however, point out that we have had an official document on this subject, which was in the Vote Office in 1946, and I think the Under-Secretary will agree that it was compiled by the very experts who have special responsibility for atomic matters, namely, those who conducted the inquiry in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That report shows that on the average—and this is subject to Civil Defence—the atomic bomb killed 50,000 people outright and rendered 400,000 homeless. I agree that we want to improve upon that. Unfortunately, other people are improving upon the atomic bomb as well and are not running away from the need to improve on it.
It is utterly stupid to talk about the atomic bomb as if it were just another weapon. It is a quite different weapon. I think that my hon. Friend quite rightly started his speech by saying that the responsibility for the failure of the Atomic Energy Commission, on the whole, rests with the Soviet Union. I do not personally deny that, although I venture to say that it is a matter which should not be glibly asserted without careful research into the whole of the circumstances, and that such research does not make quite as plain a case as many people believe. After all, the Soviet Union has accepted the need for inspection in certain circumstances. The simple point that I want to make to my hon. Friend is that it is high time that the Government published a White Paper to show where the responsibility for failure to control atomic energy lies.
How ridiculous it is that we should be told that we are to have a atomic manual before we have a White Paper which clearly shows where the responsibility lies. This is not an academic matter. As the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) has asserted, the main problem is: How we are to get recruits for Civil Defence? One of the most important ways of getting recruits for Civil Defence and in relation to other matters of far greater importance—I speak as an advocate of a voluntary expeditionary force for Malaya and Korea as well—is by enabling the man-in-the-street to know where the right and the wrong lies, and on this subject of atomic energy, I think that it is vital that the Government should make a further statement.
Let me come to the most important point, which I am trying to put before the House. It is that we have not yet given the public the facts, as the Government know them, on this matter of the atomic bomb. The hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble) made a speech with which I found it very difficult to disagree in particular, but about which I would say to him that it was very different from the speech which he made shortly after coming back from Hiroshima. In general terms, I agree with the point which the hon. and gallant Gentleman made. He said quite definitely that the Russians developed the atomic bomb last year.

Commander Noble: I was merely taking up the information which this House was given by the Prime Minister.

Mr. Blackburn: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will read the information, he will see that the statement made by the President of the United States and the Prime Minister was that an atomic explosion occurred in the U.S.S.R. in August of last year. I am hoping that a clear cut statement on this will be made by the Government. In order to show that I am perfectly willing to come forward on the matter, I will with your permission, Mr. Speaker, give the information which I possess, and about which I think it is very important that there should be a Government statement.
In the first place, the explosion that occurred last year was detected by certain devices by the Americans and ourselves into which it is unnecessary to go. All that was detected was that an atomic explosion occurred. It may have been the explosion of an atomic bomb, or, alternatively, the premature explosion of an atomic pile which "ran away." We do not know for certain which of those two theories is the correct one. But this is the important point: if my information is correct, we have at our disposal—the Americans and ourselves—the devices which would enable us to know of any atomic explosion which has taken place at any time in the Soviet Union. More important still, we should know whether any explosion has taken place in the Soviet Union since August of last year. I think that these facts should be told to the public to enable us to form a proper judgment of this matter. If that is correct, it is a matter of some significance that 11 months have gone by and only one atomic explosion has occurred. I may be wrong, and I am expressing a personal opinion, but I doubt whether the Soviet Union is very far ahead with the production of atomic bombs.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: What conclusion does the hon. Gentleman draw from the fact that there was only one explosion last year?

Mr. Blackburn: I find it difficult to form a definite conclusion, but it seems to tend in the direction of the belief held in some quarters, although not generally, that a premature atomic explosion had taken place. I think that one atomic


explosion alone, would hardly have been enough for various purposes. Incidentally, we have had a statement recently from a Soviet scientist that atomic bombs are used in the Soviet Union for blowing up mountains and enabling rivers to be driven through obstacles which otherwise could not be removed. My main point is that I hope that whoever is to reply to the Debate will try to give up-to-date information on this subject, because I think that the people are entitled to have it.
I have two further points that I wish to make, but perhaps I had better finish with the subject of atomic warfare. I say with great diffidence that the speeches which have been made appear to me to have been unrealistic. I do not think that the main danger lies in bombing raids on this country in a future war. The great danger lies in the surreptitious use of the atomic bomb. General Groves, who is entitled to be regarded as one of the greatest authorities on this subject in the world, as he was responsible for the whole effort from 1946, said in an interview that the most vital way in which the atomic bomb could be used in a future war would be at night, and that it could be dropped over the side of a neutral ship in a harbour.
Surely, the No. 1 target in a war would be the ports, and I would agree also the location, although it is definitely not Oxford, from which the B.29's would go. That being so, it is surely obvious that the way in which an atomic bomb would be used is surreptitiously. It would be quite a simple thing for an atomic bomb, or the material of an atomic bomb, to be put into a neutral ship, or some other ship, and at night to be dropped over the side at Southampton, London, or any of our main ports. The authority of General Groves is not lightly to be disregarded. I want to know what steps we are taking to see that events of this kind do not occur. The tragedy of Portsmouth has raised a certain amount of misgivings. It seems to me to be absolutely vital that we should protect ourselves in every possible way against the surreptitious use of the atomic bomb. There may be technical methods by which that can be done, by the use of very sensitive geigercounters and things of that kind, which can prevent that danger.
I agree that bacteriological warfare has been considerably exaggerated as a means of warfare by some experts and in the minds of the public. Nevertheless, that kind of warfare still remains. I hope we shall be told that proper steps are being taken to safeguard our reservoirs and general centres of food against the surreptitious use of bateriological agents of one kind or another. Let it be remembered that so far as we know, the technique of an aggressor nation today is not openly to declare war. It always uses agents, maybe a satellite state or an individual who can be repudiated. It is for that reason that I still believe, while accepting the general view that Civil Defence is important, that the most vital and immediate need is to protect ourselves, by counter-espionage and every other way, from the surreptitious use of atomic or bacteriological methods of warfare.

6.53 p.m.

General Sir George Jeffreys: I will not attempt to follow the hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Blackburn) in his disquisition on the potentialities of the atom bomb. I think we are all agreed that it is a very terrible weapon, but I venture to remind the hon. Member that the object of Civil Defence is the protection of the civil population against enemy weapons and the mitigation, so far as it is possible, of the effects of enemy weapons.
The Civil Defence Act was passed in 1948, and it is now late July, 1950, but, in spite of the time that has passed, I submit that we have not got as far as we ought to have got in the organisation of Civil Defence. No establishments have been approved, no organisation has been set up, and in spite of what the Under-Secretary said, very few personnel have been recruited. It sounds a large number to say 48,000 for the whole of the United Kingdom, but when it is brought down to counties and county boroughs, it works out at a very small average indeed. In fact, no organisation has been even laid down, although there has certainly been a lot of discussion about it.
Beyond general instructions to the effect that volunteers are required for the Civil Defence Corps and the auxiliary services, county, county borough, and county district councils have only the most sketchy information as to how they are expected to proceed with the recruiting organisation and training of personnel. One thing


can be said—and in this I cordially agree with everything said by the Under-Secretary—and that is that the training staff at the War Office, with their staff college and schools of instruction, has been functioning really well. A considerable number of instructors have been trained, including part-time instructors, who in many cases were A.R.P. instructors kept together by the voluntary associations that were very wisely formed for that purpose.
In other respects, progress has been desperately slow. We have the experience of the last war. Surely more use could have been made of it to bring into being a really sound organisation by this time. I would remind Members that under the old A.R.P. organisation, county and county borough councils, as well as certain other large authorities, were officially termed "scheme-making authorities." It was their duty to prepare and submit A.R.P. schemes. This resulted in the production of workable schemes, and I should like to know why this system has now been dropped. If it had been again adopted, I have no hesitation in saying that by now we should have had workable schemes based on past experience, and that both recruiting and training of volunteers, as well as the shelter policy, which has hardly been considered, let alone settled, might have made good progress, as well as the evacuation schemes.
Evacuation schemes cannot be done on paper. I will give just one example from my own county. The suggestion was made from the Home Office to the effect that certain parishes, because they form part of a rural district, should be part of an evacuation area, whereas these parishes are directly on a tremendous target area, and it would be absolute madness to make them evacuation areas. This was all done over the heads of the county council. I and others associated with local government welcome the fact that the Home Secretary is what is termed in the Act, "the designated Minister"—I wish that he were the only Minister concerned, because I do not believe in having too many cooks—because of his great experience of local government which gives members of local government bodies confidence in him.
We recognise that he cannot go into every detail of Civil Defence, but I suggest he should make it clear to the civil servants in the Home Office that the

county and county borough councils are responsible authorities with a due regard for economy; that they have no desire to spend more of their ratepayers' money than is necessary, and that they recognise, when it is a question of grants, that the ratepayers are also the taxpayers and that the taxpayers' money, like the ratepayers' money, must on no account be wasted. I do not think that is always recognised in the official quarters of the Home Office.
I suggest that the county and county borough councils should again be constituted "scheme-making authorities," and that in the preparation of their schemes they should be given, not only leadership and encouragement from the right hon. Gentleman, but also latitude, both administrative and financial, with powers to spend reasonable sums without prior approval from the Home Office. It is recognised by everyone in local government that where the State makes a substantial financial contribution the State must keep a close watch on how its money is spent. But, admitting that, I am quite sure there might be far greater latitude allowed to the county councils and far less querying and vetoing of the spending of comparatively small sums than is the case at present.
The Under-Secretary said that the central Government was working very closely with the local authorities. That, if I may call it so, is a half-truth. There is far too much preparing of schemes, which very often are not very sound ones, and throwing them at the local authorities; then taking a long time about considering the replies, and in the end getting little or nothing done. I would suggest that regional staffs especially should model their functions on those of staff officers of the Fighting Services. Those functions, briefly, are in the first place to assist their own immediate chiefs, and in the second place to assist the subordinates of those chiefs. If they would remember that second function it would be very valuable.
Regional staff officers, who are Home Office officials, usually have very much to learn about local government, and if they work on the lines I have suggested, and which are worked on by staff officers in the Fighting Services, things would often go more smoothly and quickly. I remember that the Lord President of the Council,


who was Minister of Home Security during the war, and, if I may say so, a very good Minister, stated in a war-time Debate that civil servants were best for some parts of A.R.P. work, but other people were better for other parts, or words to that effect. I doubt that the part for which they are best suited is working at regional headquarters, where they are in close touch with local government officers and affairs, and where among their principal functions should be the function of advising and assisting local authorities. Few of them know much about local authorities, and some—I do not say the majority—do not seem very anxious to learn.
Most civil servants find it difficult to drop Civil Service methods of, for instance, scrutinising, querying, minuting, delay—anything but taking prompt action which is what is required. I would say that what is required is, first, a strong lead from the right hon. Gentleman and the Government generally in stressing the necessity for Civil Defence organisations and recruitment; telling people, who in many cases I am afraid do not believe there is any need to worry very much, that it is necessary for them to set up these Civil Defence organisations; and to call on councils to submit schemes which, no doubt, will be considered by the Home Office. I believe we should get a very long way if we asked councils, as they were asked during the last war, to be scheme-making authorities. There are too many people who are apathetic and who do not realise the necessity for Civil Defence. They can be greatly encouraged and given a lead by the Government.
I hope there will be no crises such as that of Munich and Dunkirk. But in each of those cases, not only did it wake up the people of this country to realise that there was danger, and to take part in Civil Defence, but it woke up the Home Office very much indeed. I shall never forget that in each of those cases there were a lot of things hung up by the Home Office by little queries which were obstructing what the local authorities thought it necessary to do. But when the crisis came the Home Office said, "Get on and do what you think is necessary." If we had not done so we should have been very much behind in

the preparations which in due course we did make reasonably in time. Let us hope there will be nothing of that kind again or that there will be any necessity for it.
I think I am correct in believing that a system of zones is to be established and that those zones are to some extent to be co-terminous with, or to include, at any rate, important target areas. Each zone is to be under a zone controller. This has not been settled definitely; it has merely been talked about. The zone controller will be the operational controller of mobile columns which will not be included in county units but which will be independent units. I do not know whether any of those columns have begun to exist, even in embryo. There should be regional conferences to decide the constitution and arrangement of zones, and those regional conferences should include, as a matter of course, the local commanders of the Fighting Services.
In my county there are very important target areas which I need not specify as they are well known. To simplify the organisation I suggest that the zone should normally be the geographical county. It would prevent any cross purposes of, for instance, staffs. The same area would not have a county staff as well as another independent staff, but the zone commander should have all the resources of the county at his disposal, including the county staff. This would avoid duplicating staffs in the county. I suggest the zone commander must be a person of such standing as to cause him to be accepted and respected in the county. Assuming that he will be such a person, in the event of his mobile columns being sent out of the county he should remain in control over all the county Civil Defence services—rescue, ambulance, pioneer and so forth. His position would have to be settled as regards the training of county personnel and administration.
There is finally the question of providing assistance for the clerks in the county districts, or at any rate, for local authorities, for Civil Defence recruitment and other work, which will have to be faced. It is no use thinking that if recruiting assumes considerable proportions the existing staffs of county districts will be able to cope with it. Once recruitment commences on a large scale it will be


more than they can manage. A small county staff, comprising three or four county districts, to deal with recruiting, organisation and training in each area might meet the case.
Another thing which is holding up recruiting, I am informed, is the doubt whether there is to be a Home Guard. I wish that that doubt could be settled definitely in one way or the other. Quite a lot of potential recruits would like to be in a Home Guard if there is to be one, and will not commit themselves to Civil Defence. Some decision ought to be taken in this matter. In conclusion, I would again beg the right hon. Gentleman and the Government to give us a strong lead and, above all, to make it clear to the public that there is a real need for Civil Defence. They should impress upon everybody concerned the truth that we cannot improvise and that if we are to mitigate the effects of enemy attack we must be ready in time.

7.12 p.m.

Brigadier Clarke: If bombs had started to fall during September, 1939, we should have been in a pretty mess, because we were not prepared with our Civil Defence. As the war went on, things improved and the Fire Service and other services under the Home Secretary made progress. If war were to come in the near future—Heaven forbid it should—we have nothing in the way of preparation at the moment suitable to defend us against the atomic bomb. This is the bomb to which everybody has been referring during the Debate, but I think there are worse things than the atomic bomb. I am not trying to frighten hon. Members, but there are things just as bad as the atomic bomb.
I would ask the Home Secretary what he would do if gas were used. Has he adequate gas masks for the civil population? I do not think that the Germans were squeamish about using gas. I think they would have used it, if it had been to their advantage. I do not think that we have seen the last of that weapon. We should be very foolish if we were to sit back and think in terms of the atomic bomb only. We must be assured that there are adequate gas masks for the civilian population. Perhaps we might have an answer on this point later on. If the Government do not want to answer it,

I say, "Don't, but let us have some gas masks."
The morale of the civil population will remain good as long as people know that we have an adequate and efficient Civil Defence. If they know they have shelters to go to and that someone will come along and pull them out if a building collapses on top of them, their morale will be high. They will respond and go to work happily day after day. If the people believe that they have not adequate protection against anything that may come, they will not put their backs into their work and they will be frightened to stay in the towns. We shall have difficulty in keeping people at work. If the morale of the civil population goes, it will be extremely difficult for this country to continue at war, no matter how good our Fighting Services may be. The first thing we have to look out for is the cracking of our civilian morale. We were lucky in the last war in having "Mr. Churchill" to raise our morale at any moment when it looked like flagging. He did it better than anybody else in this country would be able to do it even at this moment.
There is an immense amount of training to be done for Civil Defence under present conditions. A lot of people think we have only to call back the men who were the heads of the Civil Defence in the last war and everything will be all right next week. I went on an exercise last year lasting the best part of three weeks, when the town clerks and the heads of the police forces of south coast towns were present. We went into the question of the military and civil people working together. The town clerks and the police were fully aware what their duties would be, and the military were aware of how they would work if we were once more attacked. There is a different technique which is well understood and applied by a small number of people.
We have now to get down to the task of training large numbers of people to the understanding of this new technique, as worked out at the Civil Defence staff college by Sir John Hodsall and other experts of the Home Office. It is absolutely essential that this should be done as soon as possible. It is no use hanging up little yellow posters in the underground and other places.
The Government must go all out in a full recruiting campaign. Without frightening


the country, they have to impress upon us that it is for our own safety that we should learn how to look after ourselves, because we never know when this new type of press-button warfare may start. As long as we are well prepared, and have gas masks and shelters, we have very little to fear. Shelters will not stop thousands of people from being killed, I admit, but they will prevent many thousands from being killed.
Many months ago, when I first came to this House, I would have suggested to the Ministry of Health that every new house they put up, should have a suitable shelter. It is easier to build a shelter when building a house than afterwards. As the Minister of Health is so slow and so extremely bad in building houses, I refrain from asking him to slow up an intolerably slow process. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about cement"?] Do not worry about cement. We can definitely put an underground shelter below a house if we want to, but it should be done now. It has to be done now and I suggest that the Home Office should think about it now.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the hon. and gallant Member estimate how much would be added to the cost per house by carrying out his suggestion?

Brigadier Clarke: I am not a building expert, and I shall not go into the cost per house. I do not think that cost comes into the matter. I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) very carefully and I did not know whether he was talking about bishops, or bombs, or housing in Scotland, or the atomic bomb. All I knew was that the hon. Member seemed to think that it was not much good to protect the population, because an atomic bomb would blow them to pieces, so therefore, let us get on with putting up houses. I say that it is no good having the best welfare service in the world if we are to blow it all to smithereens with an atomic bomb.
Civil Defence is the fourth defence—the Army, the Navy, the Air Force and Civil Defence—and it should come under the Ministry of Defence and be integrated with the other Defence services. I suggest that, before that, we should have

a new Minister of Defence, one who does not go round—

Mr. Speaker: That is not a subject which can be discussed in this Debate.

Brigadier Clarke: I suggest that Civil Defence should come under the Minister of Defence.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: It is a tragedy that we should be having a Debate like this five years after the end of the war. It is a tragedy because we do not really want to put our minds to Civil Defence, but it is a regrettable necessity. Sometimes we have to do things which we would rather not do, in order to prevent even worse tragedies and calamities befalling the country. The last war proved that it is a necessity.
An hon. Gentleman opposite referred to the time when the Lord President of the Council became the Minister of Home Security. I can assure the House that many people, particularly people in the East End of London, were pleased when the Lord President took control of Civil Defence because they were disappointed at the way the then Government had, in their opinion, let them down previously. I, too, am pleased that the Government are now getting on with the job. It is a regrettable one, but I am convinced that it is one which we must tackle. If we are to have another war—God forbid—I do not think it matters much to my constituents whether they are blown to smithereens by an atom bomb or by a high explosive bomb. All they are concerned with is to have protection against the atom bomb and the high explosive bomb.
Whoever may be responsible for the present tragic circumstances in the world, no one can point the finger of blame at the Labour Government or the Labour Party—

Mr. H. A. Price: Did not the Labour Party, in 1945, promise us good relations with Russia?

Mr. Lewis: Yes; the Labour Party and the Labour Government have done everything in their power to bring about a smooth and happy relationship, but, regrettably, the other side have not taken the hand of friendship. Hence, we are discussing Civil Defence.
I believe that there are several reasons for the poor response to the appeal for


recruits for Civil Defence. Basically, the reason why we have not had the desired response in recruiting for Civil Defence is the same as that which applies in the case of recruiting for the three military Services. That is that in their hearts men and women hope and pray that there will be no necessity for Civil Defence or the Armed Services and, therefore, do not see why they should enrol. I agree with the Under-Secretary that it is not much good hoping and praying unless we ourselves do something about it, and I am pleased that he, supported by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for King's Norton (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd), called upon all people of good will, irrespective of their political opinions, to come forward and do something in Civil Defence.
I believe that many people would join even now, but they are a little worried whether they will be properly and fairly treated. They have bitter memories, unfortunately, of not being treated as generously as they might have been in the last war, particularly in the early stages. They include civilians who suffered injury and had difficulty in establishing their pension rights. Having eventually got their pensions, they often had difficulty in retaining them when attempts were made to reduce or stop them. The same thing happened with military pensions. It is true that since the Labour Government came into power in 1945, there has been a big change, but I should like the Home Secretary to make it quite clear that those who undertake this service and their dependants, will be properly, adequately, and generously looked after in the event of injury or loss of life.
I will give another example of the kind of thing that happened to many people who volunteered for Civil Defence duties in the last war. It happened to me. In the early stages I volunteered for Civil Defence duties and used the bucket of sand, the shovel and the stirrup pump. While I was away looking after someone else's property my house went up in smoke. That happened to many people. People were engaged night after night in Civil Defence duties, but when the question of claiming for damage to their property came up they were often told, "You cannot get any war damage payment because you did not make your claim in time." Or, if they did get the claim in,

it was treated not as fairly as it might have been. Mr. Speaker, I see you looking at me, but this has a relationship to Civil Defence in so far as I do not believe that recruits will come forward unless they can be sure they will be properly dealt with in the event of their property, home or loved ones being destroyed or injured while they are serving.
In other cases, while Civil Defence workers were out on the job, their relatives were bombed out, many of them being left with nothing at all. They had to go to the Assistance Board, which treated them shabbily and meanly in many instances and argued whether they should be given £1 or £2 or £3. I am speaking of the period from 1939 to 1945. I know there has been a big change since. Therefore, I am hoping that if any Civil Defence workers encounter difficulties of that description in the future, they, together with any other voluntary service, will be treated by the Government as generously as possible.
The hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble) mentioned Exchequer grants for Civil Defence and said that these amounted to 75 per cent. in some instances. I understand that local authorities can claim 100 per cent. grant for certain Civil Defence expenditure but, in other instances, only 75 per cent. Does the Home Secretary think it is right that a local council, and thereby the people living in that area, should have to suffer both the destruction of their borough and their homes by bombs and, after the war, pay for that damage and also a quarter of the cost of Civil Defence? I believe that Civil Defence should be a national charge. For instance, no one expects Aldershot to pay for the whole of the troops stationed there. That is met out of an Exchequer grant. I ask the Home Secretary to look again at that difficulty, which confronts many local authorities.
I suggest that many old age pensioners are fit and capable of giving service to Civil Defence if called upon to do so. If anyone thinks that a person at 65 is too old for Civil Defence, I would refer him to this honourable House, where there are many over 65 who carry on Parliamentary duties.

Mr. Blyton: Does my hon. Friend suggest putting them on demolition work?

Mr. Lewis: I would not suggest they could do demolition work, but there are many jobs an older man could do. For instance, being the one in a street who could give information and have the necessary material available in an emergency. Everyone in that area would know that this old chap in that street, was the man who was acting, if only temporarily, as the street warden or until proper arrangements could be made.
Mention has been made of the atom bomb and bombers. When in the last war the balloon barrage was put up around the London docks, I wondered whether it would be a practical proposition to have a similar system of balloon barrage around the coast, those balloons perhaps being treated with radio activity to affect incoming planes. I am no expert, but I still wonder whether that would be possible. If it is not, could they be electrified so as to emit an electrical ray to prevent the bombers coming in?
My last word is to ask the Home Secretary, when dealing with Civil Defence, and when taking the local councils into his confidence, to treat them as generously as possible from a financial point of view.

7.37 p.m.

Lady Tweedsmuir: The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis) said it was a serious matter that we should have to discuss Civil Defence only five years after the greatest world struggle in history. I consider that we should have discussed this matter much sooner than today; that we should not have waited for the flare-up of open war in Korea before having this full-dress Debate. In 1948 we had the new arrangements regarding Civil Defence, yet this is the first chance this House had had to discuss this matter. People are chary of discussing Civil Defence because they say that to make public all the information on atomic energy would frighten the people. But surely to have knowledge is to give confidence? It is only ignorance that breeds fear, and if one has knowledge one is not afraid.
The hon. Member for West Ham, North, also said that he thought the reason for bad recruitment in the Civil Defence today was that the people of this country hoped so desperately for peace. Surely the hon. Gentleman must

realise that the people are quite awake to the fact that we cannot have peace through weakness, that it is only because a country is strong that it can command any authority in international councils, and that we cannot have peace at any price. It is just because we on this side of the House have such a deep disquiet over the state of our defences today that we have asked for a full-dress Debate on the subject on Wednesday.
Indeed, I find it extremely difficult to talk about Civil Defence without making some mention of general defence, because the crux of this Debate today has been the atomic bomb. We know perfectly well that germ warfare and gas were not used against this country in the last war for any humanitarian reason but because we won the Battle of Britain. It was because we had a strong Air Force and could command our own route in Europe that the enemy did not seek to exploit those weapons. It is exactly the same with the atomic bomb, and it is for that reason that Civil Defence and general defence must be discussed together in one picture.
Civil Defence is the fourth arm of our general Services. However brilliant an Army, Navy or Air Force which goes into action, the war, although going well overseas, might quite well be lost at home if the civilian population are untrained and inefficient and do not have steady morale to stand up to heavy attack. Any war of the future will be of the kind wherein every man, woman and child will have to play a part, and they will be glad at last to do so instead of having passively to stand by while their men are out in the fighting field.
When it was made known that we were to have this Debate on Civil Defence, people said to me rather cynically, "What is the use of talking about Civil Defence against the atom bomb?" That is the crux of the problem. If people have confidence that we have scientific knowledge to combat the effects of atomic bombing, if they know that we have sound Defence Forces and that the Government are pursuing the whole organisation of Civil Defence with energy and conviction, then we shall get the recruits for Civil Defence. I am quite convinced that man will never be deterred by retaliation or self-destruction in the use of the most modern weapons of war. It is the duty of us here in


Parliament, therefore, to tell the people now what are the really constructive and practical proposals that we have to offer for combating atomic warfare. I believe that if the fear of the effects of atomic bombing is largely removed, the recruiting situation will be completely different.
The only other Member who comes from a Scottish constituency and who has had the opportunity of speaking in the Debate today—the hon. Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes)—made a speech which, in my opinion, was more calculated than any other I have heard to raise fear and despondency throughout the country. Furthermore, it was blatantly a pacifist speech. It is just that kind of speech which does more harm than any kind of rumour or fifth column. I am not in favour of conscription for Civil Defence. I believe that if people are confident that the whole programme has been well handled, we can rely on voluntary recruitment.
I should like to ask some questions regarding the position of Scotland, and I am very glad to see that the hon. Lady the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is on the Front Bench and is, I know, prepared to give any information which she can. I recently wrote to the Secretary of State for Scotland to ask what was the position of Civil Defence north of the Border. The right hon. Gentleman very courteously replied, but the paper concerning the Civil Defence arrangements in Scotland covered only two pages and merely laid out the general plan. There was nothing in it which really got down to the real problem of the number of recruits and of the target which is expected for Civil Defence north of the Border. I understand, and I trust that this is not true, that to date the Government have no target for Civil Defence because the recruiting figures are so deplorable that they cannot, in fact, make a target. If we are to have a plan, particularly from a Government who believe in planning, surely there must be some idea of the number of recruits who must be trained, especially as the training involves a period of 18 months. I ask the hon. Lady, therefore, if she will give to the Home Secretary, who is to reply later, information as to the position in Scotland.
I wish to query also the position of local authorities, who at present have the

responsibility of organising Civil Defence. I should like the Home Secretary to say what pressure he can bring to bear upon those local authorities who fall behind others in their conviction, their drive and their energy to gain recruits to build up their services.
The whole question of Civil Defence should receive greater national publicity. Even if we obtain the maximum number of recruits, there are millions of people who may never come into close contact with any Civil Defence worker and who will not understand the real problems of Civil Defence. In order to allay public anxiety, it should be made quite clear, through the medium of both the Press and the B.B.C., what are the elementary facts regarding atomic warfare and the elementary precautions which should be taken in the home.
Civil Defence, after all, means organised self-help. A feeling which people hated so much in the last war was that if they were forced by circumstances to be at home because of their home obligations, they had no real hand in tackling the war while others were away at the front. People often say, "I do not want to become an expert on atomic energy. I do not want to discuss all these technical matters." There are, however, many aspects which the ordinary person can study to very great advantage in his everyday life, and one of the first of these is first-aid. I have been closely associated with the Red Cross movement and nursing services generally, and I feel that as an average occupation for the ordinary citizen, a sound knowledge of first-aid and home nursing would be of the very greatest benefit in Civil Defence.
It would be illuminating if the Home Secretary were to give a clear indication of the effects which the proposals for Civil Defence will have on our general economic position. We are already told that our resources are already stretched to the utmost. Indeed, having seen the record of the Government during the last four and a half years, I should say that there is very little slack to use up. I have never heard of a Government which has used so much money for so little effect.
This, however, is a non-controversial Debate, and I will not pursue that aspect except to remark that the whole of Civil


Defence depends primarily on the confidence which is given to the people that the Government are really concerned with the whole issue and treat it as a matter of extreme urgency, not to cause alarm, but merely to give confidence. After all, nowadays war is not declared—it happens overnight; and if we look at events in the world since 1945, any thinking person will realise that although hostilities were officially ended in that year, they but showed the start of a new war in other parts of the world. Whether it is a cold war or hot war, the battle has been waged constantly during these five years, and I consider it a very serious matter that this should be the first real opportunity which the House has had to discuss this great question.
We must also impress upon the people of this country that Civil Defence is not only a mere passive matter. It means, above all, constructive and positive action. People who are well prepared, who are confident and who have adequate equipment, will not be afraid. However bitter may be the battle in the future, we can be sure that with sound Civil Defence the armies in the field will be supported by people who are heartened and confident at home.

7.50 p.m.

Mr. Blyton: What brought me to my feet was the speech of the right hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd) who opened the Debate. He said that in the preparations before the last war Socialist councils did not help in many instances. That is true in many respects, because at that time the right hon. Gentleman's Government were only giving a 50 per cent. grant to local authorities. Those who lived in big seaport towns had to find the other 50 per cent. to give their people shelters, and when war broke out they had to get retrospective payment. I am pleased that in the preparation this time my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is not making the same mistake as the Conservative Party made in preparations prior to the war, in 1937 and 1938.
There is a big fear in this country that it is no good building up anything against the atom bomb. I think that is sheer defeatism. I remember that in my home

town, a large seaport town, which is represented in this House by the Home Secretary, it was urged that nothing could live against the high explosive bomb.

Mr. George Thomas: Neither could it when the bomb fell.

Mr. Blyton: I like peace, but I do not believe in peace at any price. We derided the Anderson shelter, but when high explosive bombs were dropped, Andersons saved thousands of lives in my home town. People who went into those shelters at least had confidence that they had some protection against blast from high explosive bombs. I think the Government have to start a campaign to say to the people that while they know this bomb is devastating, by Civil Defence it is at least possible—maybe not at the spot where the bomb drops, but in the outer area—for people to be saved.
It is quite true, as the noble Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir), said, that people are asking "What is the use? You cannot protect yourself against the atom bomb." The Government have to start some propaganda on this issue, because it is essential that we should have huge numbers of men in our demolition squads. I know that in the last war demolition squads saved many lives when people were trapped in buildings which came down. The volunteer position is really bad. I addressed a meeting in my town. It has a population of nearly 100,000, and there the total number of volunteers is 80. It is a large seaport town, heavily industrialised, and has not even a nucleus for building Civil Defence in that area. We have to ask the Government to go to employers and trade unions in the great workshops of the country, and place before the men in industry the necessity of learning Civil Defence so that they can help their neighbours if disaster should ever come upon them again in war. No one wants war, but I am one who believes that if it should come we should be prepared, so that our people can be saved to the greatest possible extent.
Are plans being prepared for the evacuation of children from vulnerable areas? As vice-chairman of the education committee in South Shields, I remember the town being divided. While one part was regarded as vulnerable and the children evacuated, the other half was not


so regarded and the children had to stay there. It is silly nonsense to let some go from one side of the street, while kiddies on the other side are regarded as safe and cannot be evacuated. I would like to know if they are going to evacuate children, and whether plans are ready now. Last time we had a good space of time in which to organise evacuation and get the children away, but this time we may not have a week, a fortnight, or three weeks. I believe plans ought to be put into readiness by the Ministry of Education determining for each area where its children shall go in the event of hostilities. All the necessary arrangements should be made so that from the word "go" the children will be evacuated, and I hope the silly nonsense of dividing towns into two as in the last war will not operate if war should come again.
In large towns an appeal can be made in regard to first aid, and particularly to those interested in the St. John Ambulance Brigade to come into Civil Defence and help in the work which will undoubtedly arise in the event of war. They should be asked to help our hospital services which are a part of the scheme. From practical experience I hope the Home Secretary will see that things are so allocated in different areas that if one area is isolated by bombing, it still has food on which to live. I hope these matters will be considered and that we shall not have the mess we had to face in the A.R.P. arrangements of the last war.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. Macdonald: Perhaps I have not a great deal to contribute to the Debate, but I speak on behalf of the vast number of rural constituencies throughout England, Scotland and Wales. Those are the constituencies which, in the event of total war, would be looked upon to give, rather than to receive, for the benefit of the country as a whole. This war, if it comes, will undoubtedly be the most terrible we have ever faced, but that is no cause for defeatism, and the rural areas of the country in such a war would have a very big part to play.
I am sorry that occasionally the Debate on this vital matter has lapsed into the pettyness of party politics. I am very sorry to say that, because this is something above party politics. We must all pull

together to produce the best Civil Defence we can. That will increase the morale of our people and, in its way, by our resolute preparedness may be some contribution towards preventing a war ever occurring. Country districts must give help to the crowded areas, and I ask the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland to ask all local authorities to persuade their citizens to come forward and volunteer for Civil Defence.
I understand that volunteering to date for Civil Defence has been very poor, but are we sure that those members of the Government responsible for this, have gone about it in quite the right way? I believe there is an immense fund of local pride and local competition between county areas and county towns on which we could call. I suggest that the Government, with a view to helping local authorities in their recruiting drives, should agree to allow 100 per cent. to local authorities for the cost of training schemes in rescue squads, auxiliary fire brigades, repairs to roads, railways, gas mains, electricity services, in auxiliary nursing and in the use of mobile canteens. That cost may seem a big item, but it is nothing so great as the cost of building a number of permanent structures in rural areas as part of the defence scheme. Every one of the items I have mentioned would be of benefit in peace-time to the citizens who trained in these spheres of Civil Defence.
I believe that if the local authorities were called upon and were helped financially in that way, they could organise competitions between areas as to who had the best auxiliary fire brigade, the best mobile canteen service, the best auxiliary nursing service, etc. In my constituency the friendly competition between the various towns is very keen. If that spirit were spread throughout the rural areas on a national scale we could get together a vast number of volunteers who would be ready to assist the more crowded areas in their time of need. They rendered valuable service in the last war, and they can render more valuable service if a still more terrible war comes upon us.
Because of the housing shortage the rural areas will not be able, much as they will wish, to give a tremendous amount of housing space to people evacuated from the crowded areas.


Theretore, we must prepare sites on the edge of small country towns and villages, and connect them with running water, where the evacuees would be under canvas for the period of their evacuation. That might sound pretty horrible to a number of people, but if we have not the building labour force today to meet the requirements of our housing schemes how are we suddenly to find the building labour for a lot of emergency houses for evacuees from the cities? I suggest, therefore, that we should prepare sites which can be used for future housing schemes in peace-time but which are available as sites on a vast scale for camping accommodation under canvas should we need to evacuate people.
I also urge the Government to look very carefully into the supply of those items which will most be needed for Civil Defence of this character. I remember a horrible experience I had about two days after the last war broke out. I was sitting in a large hairdressing saloon where someone in the next chair was lying back and boasting of the vast profit he was making out of sandbags. Because none of these had been ordered beforehand local authorities and hospitals were in so great a hurry to get them filled that he was supplying only 900 for every 1,000 he was supposed to supply. He thought that was clever business. I hope that that kind of thing will not be allowed in the event of an emergency coming upon us.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Did the hon. Member report that breach of law to the authorities at the time? If not, surely he was lacking in his duty as a citizen.

Mr. Macdonald: I felt so annoyed that I went up to the man and let him know exactly what I thought of him. I walked out with a view to reporting the matter. When I returned the man had gone. That was as much as I could do. It left an indelible mark in my memory. I am sure that kind of thing went on in connection with supplies of a great many materials required to meet an emergency.
In looking at Civil Defence we ought to try wherever possible in our schemes to use things which in peace-time, when the danger has passed, can be used for the further development of our country, our housing estates and our people generally.

I hope that the Home Secretary will call into service that class of the community which an hon. Member called the old age pensioners. I again call them, as I have once already called them, the long-service people of this country. A great many of them are not physically fit to remove people from bomb-damaged houses, but they are able and willing and have the time to do a good deal of training in many other of the aspects of Civil Defence.
Finally, I would urge that an observer corps should be trained in rural areas—it may be that it can be done voluntarily, I hope that it can—not only with a view to spotting hostile aircraft but also with a view to guarding our reservoirs and rivers against the dropping of bacteria into them. There is a vast field of activity in which the rural areas of this country can do much within the next few months towards making the whole country safer in this emergency. I hope that the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland will spare no effort to use that grand feeling which exists in rural areas for coming forward in a national emergency of this kind.

8.6 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Miss Herbison): There have been very few specific Scottish points raised in this Debate. I wish to make it clear that all the information given by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department applies equally to Scotland as to England and Wales. The Home Secretary will be replying to the general points raised by all hon. Members, whether Scottish, English or Welsh. My task now is to deal only with those few points which are specifically Scottish.
The right hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd) referred to a telegram which he had received from Edinburgh today. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) wished for some information about that telegram and about the shelters to which it made reference. I find that the telegram came not from Edinburgh Corporation but from a private individual in Edinburgh. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire also asked about Government policy on the dispersal of population—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The fact that the question was asked by a private individual surely does not mean that it does not deserve an answer? Could we have an explanation of the Government's air raid shelter policy?

Miss Herbison: I intended to- say that my right hon. Friend will be dealing with the whole policy on shelters, which applies equally to the United Kingdom as a whole. I wished to make clear in the House that the telegram had not come from Edinburgh Corporation.
As I was saying, my hon. Friend asked what was the Government's policy on the dispersal of population. Then, in his speech he told us that he had already received that information as a result of a Question which he had addressed to the Secretary of State for Scotland. Since he received that answer and information there has been no change in the Government's policy. My hon. Friend referred to Ayrshire as a reception area. Only some parts of Ayrshire would be reception areas, and the part which contains the Ardeer explosive works is certainly not among the parts which will be used as one. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be glad to hear that.
The only specific Scottish point raised by the noble Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) was a query as to how many recruits we had so far been able to obtain. Here are the figures in each category: for the Civil Defence Corps 1,746, Auxiliary Fire Service 300, special constabulary 800, and national hospital reserve 720. These were obtained mainly as a result of the recruiting campaign launched in November, 1949. We hope in the autumn, possibly in October, to renew this campaign with both national and local publicity.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend again, but could she give the figures for Aberdeen?

Miss Herbison: I should have to have notice of that question. I have given the figures for which the noble Lady asked. She suggested that the reason why recruits were not coming forward in the numbers desired was this fear of the atom bomb, which, I am sure, is general among our population. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department said that on Wednesday of this week

a booklet would be going out dealing with that matter. I hope that booklet will be widely read in Scotland as in the whole of Great Britain, and that, having been widely read, it will, to some extent, allay this fear in the minds of our people, and will help in the recruitment campaign which we hope to have in the autumn.
Finally, I wish to make it clear that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible for Civil Defence inside Scotland. The general responsibility for the administration of Civil Defence, apart from training and research, lies with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. These activities are organised on a United Kingdom basis by the Home Office. On all the committees mentioned by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office, Scotland is very adequately represented, and there is the closest liaison possible between the two countries.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. Henry Brooke: I speak in this House as the Member for Hampstead, but I am also a member of the committee of the London County Council which is charged with Civil Defence responsibilities, and I believe that no member of that committee would demur to anything I am going to say about Civil Defence planning. I assure the Home Secretary that anything I say is intended in a constructive and not in a hostile spirit. Speaking on 26th October, 1948, the Prime Minister said:
The main purpose of our plan will be to ensure the creation of a reserve in peace of trained personnel to deal with the consequences of any hostile attack, and the establishment of the framework of an organisation which can be brought into operation at short notice."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th October, 1948; Vol. 457, c. 30.]
But 21 months have passed, and we are still far short of that aim; and that, in the smallest possible compass, explains the anxiety with which we have approached this Debate.
We grant that the Government have embarked on a long-term plan for building up Civil Defence. We have no quarrel with that but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden) said, we do not yet detect the requisite sense of urgency. If our Civil Defence preparations are not to


keep in step with our military preparations for the defence of this island, then we might almost as well have no Civil Defence at all.
At the present time, local authorities have the impression that they are expected by Government Departments to go forward with Civil Defence, but at the same time to go forward with the very minimum of expenditure. I agree that there is a difference between now and 1938. Then there was a dispute between the local authorities and the Home Office about the allocation of the expenditure. Now there is a feeling among local authorities that the Treasury are very strongly against any expenditure of any magnitude at all.
Civil Defence does not appear to be given any particular priority. It seems clear that up to now the Government have made their Civil Defence plans on the basis that there is to be no diversion from the country's main economic effort. I think that comes out most strongly of all in the information given to local authorities in circular after circular, telling them that they are to take on no additional senior staff in order to fulfil their Civil Defence responsibilities. In my opinion, it is impossible adequately to implement those circulars without a larger staff at the top. I will read to the House a sentence from one of those circulars. It says:
It may be necessary that this assistance should be provided by making a full-time appointment, but in any such case the local authority should closely examine the possibility of rearranging the duties performed by the existing members of its staff so as to release one of them with suitable qualifications for the work without replacement.
In other words, if they find somebody on the staff who is not too busy and who is reasonably qualified, they should transfer him to Civil Defence. That seems to be entirely out of keeping with the sense of urgency which both sides of the House, I believe, desire to convey with regard to Civil Defence.
Local authorities have received guidance on evacuation, on the care of the homeless, on rest centres, and a little, though not enough, on emergency feeding, but as yet they have heard virtually nothing about what they are to do in respect of shelter policy. It certainly seems surprising that the Government have not yet revived Section 33 of the

Civil Defence Act, 1939, which empowered the Minister to make regulations regarding materials and construction of I buildings in order that they might be more secure against hostile attack. The Section also empowered the Minister to make regulations regarding the provision of shelters for the people in the buildings. I cannot help feeling that in London we have already missed opportunities in that respect.
The hon. Lady the Joint Under-I Secretary of State for Scotland spoke of a new recruiting drive. I trust that the Home Secretary will assure the House that that drive is coming, that the t publicity will be better, and that this time the local authorities will be given rather longer notice of it, because they are keen about this and wish to co-operate to the full and make the greatest possible success of it. It will be a tremendous advantage if the recruiting drive coincides with the arrival of uniforms.
At the beginning of the Debate, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department referred to Kensington, Westminster, and St. Marylebone as the three London boroughs showing the largest numbers of recruits. I also know which boroughs show the smallest numbers, and the unevenness of recruiting is a serious factor to which, I think, too little attention has so far been paid in this Debate. I trust, too, that local authorities will not be encouraged to enforce too rigidly the restrictions on the acceptance of Class "Z" reservists for Civil Defence training so long as there is a shortage of recruits. During the time that we have more instructors than recruits, the more people we can train the better, provided, of course, there is a clear understanding that the "Z" reservists may, as the war proceeds, be quickly required for other purposes. We have to envisage the possibility of sudden attack, at which time we shall need the maximum number of people who know something about Civil Defence.
We were told this afternoon of the new manual on atomic warfare which is to be produced. That is of the utmost importance, and I would add my voice to those of other hon. Members who have asked that it shall be explained in simple, forceful language by Ministers and others, and not only in the technical language of a manual. Let us make no


mistake about it—the Communists having now had prior information of this, we shall have announcements by Wednesday from those whom the hon. Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes), described as the best-informed scientists, telling us that what is contained in this manual has no scientific basis at all. I have seen this in my own constituency. An authoritative speech was made by a well-informed expert on Civil Defence requirements and the measures of defence against the atomic bomb. Straightaway, what I might call the forces backed by the Communists swung into action. Letters appeared in the local papers. I have a copy of one of these letters here, signed by four gentlemen who have the initials of various academic degrees after their names. It says:
Talk of a Civil Defence force in a Third World War is not only unrealistic but dangerous. … There is no defence against the new weapons of war, except the prevention of war itself.
That kind of thing has been given a start. There has not been much official knowledge available to the ordinary public. There has been little about atomic warfare, and people, often connected with the Association of Scientific Workers—that Communist-permeated, if not Communist-dominated, organisation—have been coming forward and have been endeavouring to persuade innocent people that there is no defence at all.

Mr. George Thomas: Does the hon. Member believe that only Communists are saying there is no defence against the atom bomb?

Mr. Brooke: I think a number of idealistic pacifists and others with the highest motives are saying that, but unfortunately they and everyone are exposed to a lot of pseudo-science put out with a good deal of money behind it from Communist sources.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Will not the hon. Member go further and agree that there are a great many Conservatives who say there is no defence against the atom bomb?

Mr. Brooke: I have not met them yet. As I have been challenged, I may say that I have a copy here of the petition circulated by the so-called British Peace Committee, and I am informed that in Hampstead over 15,000 signatures have

been obtained already. As I know of one boy who has boasted that he has signed 14 separate copies, I do not take that very seriously. This petition is being presented to everybody in the streets and elsewhere to sign. It invites people to express their approval of:
(1) The prohibition of all atomic weapons, with international control and inspection;
(2) A declaration that the first government that will use atomic weapons shall be branded as a war criminal.
Many innocent people do not detect in that the Communist plot. If one signs that document, what one is saying, in effect, is that anybody can commit aggression against this country with impunity, but this country will be a war criminal if it defends itself by using the atomic bomb. The idea meanwhile is most insidiously being built up that we shall have no defence against atomic bombs dropped on us, and that therefore it is better for people not to believe that Civil Defence will accomplish anything.
I am not exaggerating the Communist strength, but I am asking all those concerned with Civil Defence policy not to ignore it, because all this propaganda has a weakening effect. The only successful way of countering it is by positive information; and it must be made clear that that information has the backing of yet more distinguished scientists than those who can be claimed as allies of the Communist side.
In conclusion let me revert to the Councils' problem. In these last five years, the local authorities have been subject to an intense pressure of legislation, which falls most heavily on the chief officers. They have to make innumerable adjustments and arrangements, even when powers are being taken away from them, as there is so much clearing up to be done. Either the Home Secretary must cease to impose his ban on the appointment of new additional senior staff to fulfil Civil Defence functions, or else the Government must fix some kind of scale of priorities and give Civil Defence a place in it. We who, from the local authority standpoint, have to try and carry out what the Government Departments wish us to do must know what we should drop or what we should subordinate if we are to put through the Civil Defence programme and yet are not allowed to enlarge our staff.
The more information the Government can convey, both to the local authorities and to the general public, the better. We are going to need courage, and the finest producer of courage is preparedness. When the London blitz started in September, 1940, the warden service was prepared. It knew its job and it was able itself to transmit confidence to the ordinary members of the public. It is that confidence which is the strongest barrier against panic.

8.27 p.m.

Mr. George Thomas: It is one of the prime purposes of any Government to ensure the safety of its citizens at all times. Therefore, I believe it is a matter of considerable significance to us in this House, that the campaign for Civil Defence recruits has proved so disappointing in this country. There is something very appealing about an organisation which is established to save life, and the Civil Defence movement is such that normally it ought to appeal to the highest instincts of our people.
It is fitting, therefore, for us to ask why it is that large numbers of decent men and women in our country are just turning their backs to the appeal to join in the Civil Defence organisation of our country; for we have to concede that it is a dismal failure, indeed. I believe that the noble Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) is right when she says that fear is playing a very significant part it this. We have to recognise that every war is worse than the one which went before it, and the people of this country know that. It is no use any Member of Parliament trying to pretend to the people that it will be easier next time than it was last time. The people know from their experience that the next war will be ten times worse than those which went before and that the destruction in any war is always worse than the destruction of the war which preceded it.
Gentlemen who are by no means Communists or fellow-travellers are making their own pronouncements concerning the weapons of destruction, now in the hands of the big Powers, in a way which must give concern to us all. Nobody would now accuse a gentleman holding office in America of being a fellow-traveller, but the professor of physical chemistry

at the University of Chicago has warned us that we might find the hydrogen bomb a thousand times as powerful as the Nagasaki bomb. Mr. Liddell Hart has warned us that there is no real protection against that weapon, but the theory seems to be advanced that, as gas was not used in the last war, so the atom bomb will not be used in the next. But, as has been said by a number of hon. Members, gas was not used because of the fear of retaliation.
I would remind the House that it was not the totalitarians who used the atom bomb in the last war; it was the Christian democracies who used the atom bomb in order to ensure victory for our side. There is no guarantee that the atom bomb will not be used in the next war. Indeed, the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke), said that we must keep our hands free to use the atom bomb in given circumstances, while the hon. Member for Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts) cried out instinctively the other day that we, or the Americans, ought already to have used the atom bomb in Korea.
Let us not delude our people. It is more than likely that the atom bomb will be used. Let us, therefore, seek to build up our Civil Defence in the knowledge that this dreadful weapon is within the bounds of possibility. It was dropped on the Japanese last time; it might be on the British or the Americans or the Soviet Union next time. I ask the House to remember that Professor Blackett, who, again, would hardly be accused of being a fellow-traveller—although I know that anyone left of the Liberals is a fellow-traveller so far as hon. Members opposite are concerned—has pointed out that defence against the atom bomb is economically impossible. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be able to satisfy the House that we have a defence or, what would comfort us all, that there is a possibility of some great scheme whereby defence can be provided to the citizens of this realm in the dreadful contingency of a war breaking out.
I promised not to speak for long, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and in the few minutes which are at my disposal I want to try to make at least a few suggestions. I believe that the high idealism of Civil Defence can appeal to the mass of the citizens of this country if it is presented in the right way and by the right people.


I know that the teaching profession, with the Ministry of Education, is already considering plans in connection with evacuation.

Mr. Hector Hughes: And the legal profession.

Mr. Thomas: I have no doubt that the legal profession will be there.

Mr. Carmichael: Earning an honest penny.

Mr. Thomas: I wonder whether the Home Secretary will try to link up Civil Defence with a useful peacetime service so that people will feel that they are not wasting their time in preparing for a war which they trust will never occur or which, if it does occur, will be one in which they do not feel a tin helmet will give them much protection. Will he try, through his officers, to offer some way in which the work which is done in the Civil Defence organisation will also be useful in peacetime? The deep shelters, for which some people have been asking, could be very useful in peacetime as car parks and great underground experiments could be useful to industry in our great cities at the present time.
On the general question I want to say this to the House. It must not be a charge, as though it were a sin, that we are peace-mongers on this side of the House. I confess quite openly to the House that the idea of war to my mind is un-Christian. It is revolting; it is a negation—a complete negation of the way of the New Testament. My constituents, at least, know my attitude well on this question. But to save life is a privilege and a responsibility. We, whatever be our shades of opinion in the House, must be anxious to see that as much life as possible is saved if destruction be let loose upon the people. The Home Secretary cannot be satisfied that the course taken so far is satisfactory. Let him link it to some constructive peacetime work, and I believe the response will be much greater.

8.35 p.m.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I think the House will agree that a Debate on Civil Defence was long overdue. Since the Civil Defence Bill of 1948 we have not had a Debate on this subject in this House. That Bill, as the House will remember, was an enabling Bill. In other

words, it was a skeleton on which various sinews and muscles were to be fitted and into which organs were to be placed; and the object of the Debate today, very largely, is to discover how far that has been achieved, and when the right hon. Gentleman replies to the Debate I hope he will be able to give us an encouraging report.
Total war demands the total effort of every man and woman in the country. This great pattern of Defence, which will be further debated on Wednesday, is a jigsaw puzzle, into which various pieces have to be fitted; and today we, on both sides of the House, are endeavouring to assist in the completion of the picture by fitting in a few pieces. In my view, there are still too many pieces lying on the table for which homes have not yet been found. One of those pieces, of course, is recruitment. I was very glad that the Under-Secretary of State, in his opening speech, did not regard that with any complacency. I was interested in his figures as to the total number of recruits to date. I think I am not wrone in suggesting he said 48,000.

Mr. de Freitas: Between 47,000 and 48,000.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I am very much obliged. I am not endeavouring in any way to catch the hon. Gentleman out, but I did have a letter signed by the Secretary of State dated 17th July in which the figure was given of 38,000. The Under-Secretary of State said recruiting had been proceeding rapidly of recent weeks. If in seven days he has recruited 10,000, then he is doing very well indeed!

Mr. de Freitas: The figure I gave was that at the 30th June. I do not want to make too much of this point. I said there were between 47,000 and 48,000; and 32,000 were in the Civil Defence Corps, and the rest in the A.F.S., the Special Constabulary, and so on.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: It is a minor point, but I just wanted to get it clear. As the hon. Gentleman himself said, the figure is by no means satisfactory, and everything must be done to improve it, because we did have no fewer than 1,500,000 people engaged in this task in the last war.
The hon. Gentleman was enlightening about age groups. That is just the sort


or thing about which local authorities have been worrying, and they will welcome that additional data. But why is the age 40 in the case of men? After all, men in the last war were called up to the age of 45, and 40 seems to me somewhat low. Women were called up to the age of 42. I think he may find that there will have to be a revised figure in the course of time.
He has said in reply to a Question of mine and on other occasions that the best ambassadors in the recruitment for Civil Defence were the Civil Defence volunteers themselves. That is only partly true. It has not been the case altogether, because many of those volunteers who joined up found that there was no instruction going on and that there was no equipment with which to instruct. They have, as people do on these occasions, formed themselves into Civil Defence clubs, but that is as far as it got, and although there are very pleasant places to go to that does not make for very good ambassadors. The ambassador is the man who finds a real live show going, with everybody on the top line. That is what the Home Secretary must attempt to achieve in the very near future if he is to get any more recruits. Another deterrent to recruitment has been the condition of enrolment wherein volunteers are not released from liability to service in the Forces. It is essential that these people should know exactly what is required of them.
That brings me to one of the most important points in my speech tonight, namely, the question of the reserved occupations in the unfortunate event of another war. On that hangs the whole future of voluntary recruitment to the Territorial Army, the Observer Corps, the Home Guard, and all other voluntary bodies. It is vital for the Minister of Labour to make up his mind on this issue, and to let industry, the Forces, local authorities and the country at large know his decision. There are many people on the "Z" Reserve who do not know whether they will be called up again into the Forces, and they will not volunteer for Civil Defence; naturally they want to join their old unit. If any of them discover that they are in a reserved occupation and will not be called up, there immediately are potential recruits

for the Home Guard, the Observer Corps, or the Civil Defence Corps.
It is almost equally important for the nationalised industries to give a lead in these matters. There the Government have control. I agree they have not got control over private industry, but they can give encouragement. With the nationalised industries, the Government have got control, and they should give a lead. After all, the spirit of competition is what gets things done in this world. Everybody knows that to get a high standard in anything one encourages the competitive spirit. If the nationalised industries give a lead and private industry sees what is happening, they will follow suit, but neither can do anything until they get a little more direct lead from the Government themselves.
The Home Guard is not strictly under Civil Defence, but I do want to say this. There has been much talk about the military mobile columns which will come to the assistance of the Civil Defence authorities. I warn the right hon. Gentleman that he is in grave danger of counting heads twice, because, in my view, those military mobile columns will not be available when the time comes. They will be exercised in a vast expansion of a new national Army; very large numbers of them will go abroad at an early date. The Home Guard was formed, admittedly rather late in the day, in order to repel invasion by sea.
Let me say straight away that in all probability there is no grave danger of invasion by sea in the early days. Therefore, the Home Guard will be available for other duties, and I suggest that they should be formed into these military mobile columns which are part of the Civil Defence scheme. I do not suggest that they should be part and parcel of the Civil Defence Corps; I am sure that would be impracticable. But I do suggest very seriously that the Home Secretary should consider this matter, because it would be very dangerous for any of us to put out of our minds the possibility—I put it no higher than that—of airborne attack. These things happen extremely quickly. As we know, our potential enemy is equipped with vast numbers of troop-carrying aircraft. Their's was the country which initiated parachute landings long before the last


war. I suggest that the formation of the Home Guard, although it is not the responsibility of the right hon. Gentleman, is of vital importance. It can be that mobile military unit which can be called upon in an emergency to come to the assistance of Civil Defence.
I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman: What is to be the position of the Observer Corps, and what is going to be done about fire watching? Is it to be made compulsory or not? This again raises the question of reserved occupations. I entirely agree that the local authorities are the right people to deal with Civil Defence as they did in the last war, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept the assurance of most hon. Members who have spoken today that the local authorities are extremely short of directives. They have not yet been issued with an establishment, which is vitally necessary. I do not know what the Joint Planning Staff have been doing—no doubt very hard work—but they have not yet worked out a chain of command or, if they have, it has not been issued to the local authorities. We ought to be beyond that stage. The people who are to operate the chain of command should be designated by now, made familiar with their tasks and training should have begun.
So far as the Defence Estimates are concerned, we are spending at the moment £780 million on Defence of which only £6½ million is going to Civil Defence. What is even more alarming is that the cost of training has been reduced from £472,000 to £191,000. I hope that I may be contradicted about that. I hope that some of the weaknesses which appeared during the war and which went on for most of the war will on the next occasion, if it comes, be eradicated. There was far too much duplication and overlapping between the various Services. One heard again and again complaints of two sets of people doing the same job in different Services. That is bad planning and muddled thinking. It may arise, as I know from my experience of the Service, through bad orders from the top—complicated instructions which no one can understand. I implore the right hon. Gentleman to see that the instructions are clear, explicit and simple, so that there can be no question as to who is responsible for carrying out any particular task, and so that the same instructions

are not issued to two different Services, resulting in overlapping and duplication taking place.
I am a little disturbed to see that there are no other Ministers on the Front Bench who have a vital interest in these matters of Civil Defence. I should have thought that the Minister of Defence would have been here, but it may well be that he is busy with other things. The Minister of Health is not here, but I am glad to see that he is represented by his able Parliamentary Secretary. On this local government point, I would ask the Home Secretary about section 12 of the Civil Defence circular, in which it is laid down that officers shall be permanent officials of the local authority and not members of the Civil Defence Corps. It seems to me that there is something wrong here. Surely there must be some of those who bore the heat and burden of the day during the war whose experiences as instructors would be invaluable. It is not surely necessary for an instructor to be a permanent member of a local authority.
I was disturbed by some of the figures the Under-Secretary gave in regard to the number of people who have been trained at these colleges. I think I am right in saying that he told us there were 44 whole-time instructors and 29 part-time instructors.

Mr. de Freitas: Those figures were for the number of full-time Civil Defence officers. It goes into hundreds in the other case.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: It means 49 officers trained as Civil Defence officers?

Mr. de Freitas: They are, of course, trained: but it means 49 Civil Defence officers.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Established officers?

Mr. de Freitas: Yes, Sir.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I think there are some 180 local authorities in the country, which means that 49 is not a very large number. Every local authority should by now have a fully qualified Civil Defence officer. I hope that something very urgent will be done about this in the very near future.
The emphasis of this Debate has been on the atom bomb, and I am not going to recapitulate all that has been said. We


have had a very enlightened and informative speech from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble) who has made a study of this. I should like to emphasise his plea that something more should be done in regard to the shelter policy. We have been told that it is a policy on paper, but it is high time it became a policy in fact. Although paper may have some protection, it is not really protection against the atom bomb. We welcome the fact that the manual is about to be issued. It will do a great deal to assist local authorities in their task of recruitment, and also, I hope, do a great deal to allay some of the exaggerated fear existing in the minds of the people, some of it stimulated, no doubt, by the enemies of this country.
I should like to know what is the Government's policy in regard to factories, large office buildings and so on. I was very surprised, when in Stockholm last year, on visiting one of their new hospitals, a vast building, to be informed that the hospital was duplicated underground. I suggest that it is high time instructions were issued in regard to new constructions on the incorporation of shelters in these buildings. We have also heard speeches from Members who have at the back of their minds the question of bacteriological warfare. We had an interesting speech in this connection from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross). Without wishing in any way to continue in the vein in which he spoke, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will give us in general terms some reassurance that this matter is being gone into on a high scientific level, that some results are coming from these resources and some policy and plan is being formulated.
I was in agreement, I think almost for the first time in six years, with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) when she stressed the importance of training in topography, that is, in map reading. It was one of the most obvious faults in the old system of Civil Defence training that so few people seemed to know their way about the area in which they were supposed to operate.
I would carry that still further. In what vehicles are these people to operate? In what vehicles are the mobile defence

columns—which are not in existence at the moment—to operate? Are they to be requisitioned vehicles—which is obviously what they will be—and are they already earmarked, or has anyone considered the question of earmarking them? Do these training courses include instruction in driving and instruction in moving about in column? As one who in the early part of the war had to try to train soldiers, I know how long it takes to be able to train a column of vehicles to move from A to B at a slow speed, let alone when they are in a hurry, or when there is a blackout.
I would like to know if the Government have decided on a policy of blackout or not? I do not necessarily want an answer tonight; it is a rhetorical question. But I think it is time they made up their mind. I would like to see no blackout, because I believe that it did far more harm to the morale of the people than would have been the case if lighting had been normal. But that is not for me to say, and I am not an expert. I put it forward as an idea.
I hope I shall have the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to this, my final point, because, like the point I made just now on the question of reserved occupations, it is a most important part of my speech. Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an indication as to who is to be the designated Minister? There are many Departments in the Government connected with Civil Defence. There are the Minister of Health, the Minister of Education, the Minister of Works, the Minister of Defence and the Minister of Supply so far as I know, and there are probably others. It is perfectly obvious that we have to have one Minister to coordinate the activities of all those various Ministers.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman is at the moment Chairman of that particular Committee. I think I am right in saying that. But that is not quite the same as being the Civil Defence Minister. Is it proposed that there be a separate Minister for Civil Defence or an Under-Secretary of State for Civil Defence? Or will the Home Secretary be Home Secretary and Minister of Defence combined, as it was in the last war? We must be enlightened upon that point at this stage. We asked the same question a year and a half ago and we did not elicit a clear


answer. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give that answer tonight.
This Debate has ranged far and wide and, with a few deplorable exceptions has maintained the non-controversial atmosphere encouraged by my right hon. Friend when he made his most excellent and well-informed speech at the beginning. There has been criticism: we say there has been a lack of clear insistent directive from the top to local authorities. We believe there is an urgent need for an establishment and an urgent need for a chain of command in the Civil Defence Corps as there are in other services. We believe there must be a Minister designate who is responsible to this House. We believe that local authorities are experiencing great difficulty in extracting from the Government any clear, authoritative information. We believe that until the reserved occupations have been decided upon, nobody can do anything.
There is an urgent need to stimulate in our people a sense of urgency. We must not be afraid to tell them the truth. We cannot frighten the British people. They have far too great a sense of humour but they like respect, and react to leadership and information. Knowledge dispels fear. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give us information tonight and that during the course of the next year he will provide stimulating leadership. We hope that the Debate will act as a stimulus to recruiting and will allay some of the exaggerated fears in regard to the atomic bomb, putting the vision of that dreadful weapon more or less into its true perspective. Let this Debate go out as a call to the country to people to come forward in the cause of humanity and in the cause of self-help.

9.2 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I would like to thank hon. Members who have participated in the Debate for the frankness with which they have put forward their suggestions for the improvement of this service and for the moderation with which they have expressed their criticism. From the moment that the right hon. Member for King's Norton, Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd started his speech there has been recognition of the great trouble that this service causes to all those who are associated with it. I know from my association with it before the recent war, when I was one

of the representatives of local authorities who used to see the right hon. Gentleman and the head of his Department, how difficult these things can be. As one who has sat at both sides of the table I hope I can appreciate some of the difficulties which confront local authorities as well as those which confront the Government.
Throughout the speeches we have had recognition that in this matter we should be very foolish indeed to indulge in party warfare or in recrimination. Just before the last war we were dealing with a service for which there was no precedent in the history of the country. Today we can profit by the lessons we all learned during that conflict. We have to recognise in addition that we are confronting in the future, if hostilities occur, some phases which will again have no precedent and that we shall have to rely upon such forethought as we can take and upon a ready adaptability to meet the most unexpected circumstances. I am grateful, therefore, to hon. Members on both sides of the House for the spirit in which this Debate has been approached.
The right hon. Member said something about normality. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said that normality for him was a life which commenced with a recollection of a bomb falling. Those of us who are older and whose minds can go back to the days before the Agadir incident—from which I trace a good deal of the history of the times in which I have lived—think of a country in which fear was unknown, where the things that have haunted all of us ever since that date were right outside our comprehension and nobody took any account of them in any calculations they made either as to their personal affairs or as to the affairs of the nation. I recollect the shock it was to me as a comparatively young man to read the speech which Mr. Lloyd George made on the occasion of the Agadir Conference, for at that time Mr. Lloyd George was not regarded as among the most bellicose of the Members of the House of Commons. I do not associate normality with the kind of things with which the hon. Gentleman associated it, but let us be quite certain of this, that we do not go back to normality; whatever normality is going to be, it is something to which we are going forward, and we have to shape our lives in a spirit of realism and of recognition of the harsh and


unpalatable facts with which we are surrounded.
It is a pity that the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) did not hear the right hon. Gentleman because I am quite sure that only the fact that a statement made in this House is completely privileged would have saved him from a serious slander action for calling my hon. Friend "an intellectual." I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that not merely Colonel Blimp and Private Blimp but also the privates who expressed their views in forcible language about the "blimpish-ness" of Colonel Blimp were the people who entered this service during the last war and who served the country well.
I think the most important note which could be sounded in this discussion was sounded by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden), who said that if Civil Defence is to be effective recruits must come in now. I want to make my point of view on that quite clear. I agree with what was said by the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer), that recruits who are real recruits to the service and not re-enlistments have been disappointed to find that there has been no instruction. I came to the conclusion that it was quite useless to make a wide and dramatic appeal for recruits before I had trained the instructors who could deal with the people when they were recruited, and the figures which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary gave indicated that we can now claim that we have a sufficient number of trained instructors to make recruitment a reality.
I want to give the House my own way of looking at it. I believe that it will take about 50 hours' instruction to give a man or a woman reasonable proficiency in whichever branch of this work they choose to join. If they are willing to give up two hours a week—after all, that is a big sacrifice to ask from men and women in successive weeks—it will take approximately six months before they can regard themselves as being completely fitted to undertake their duties. Of course, they will acquire some measure of proficiency in the meantime. I would therefore urge on all to whom this call appeals that they should not delay now in joining this service because in the greater part of the country we

can now provide them with adequate instruction which will justify their time and will equip them in what I hope may be regarded as a moderate space of time to take their appropriate place in the service. I hope that now we are in a position to provide them with appropriate instruction, any hanging back from the fear that they would not be immediately helped in equipping themselves will have vanished.
I also want to deal with that other topic which has bulked so largely in our discussion this evening, the problem of the atomic bomb. I regret in one way that this Debate should have taken place today instead of later in the week, because I am quite certain that had this booklet which I hold been in the hands of hon. Members, they would have realised the amount of care and attention which has been given to this matter by very skilled people in putting the whole of the facts—both the dangers that are to be encountered and the steps that can be taken to minimise them—into a form that will be readable, as I was asked by the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Ian Harvey) that they should be, and not in the form of Army manuals. Far be it from me to start any trouble with the Army on this matter but, having had to study infantry drill since 1899, I agree with him that most of the manuals dealing with it are amongst the best cures that have been invented for insomnia.
No one will find that criticism justified with regard to this volume. I hope it will be widely read, not merely by people who are in the Civil Defence service, but by all those who wish to get a balanced and well-proportioned view on the subject of this Debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) quoted Professor Blackett. I want to read a couple of sentences from the notorious pamphlet issued by the Association of Scientific Workers headed "Can Britain be Defended?" They come after the word "Conclusion"—
It is true that passive defence preparations, some of which are at present lacking, could enable Britain to survive a war in which a few atomic bombs were spasmodically dropped. The defensive measures involved would probably not be insupportable; lack of them might be a decisive factor.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: May I remind my right hon. Friend that the hon. Member


for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) was quoting from Professor Blackett's introduction?

Mr. Ede: I am like most other people; as a rule, I read the introduction after I have read the volume. I am not to be scared by the fine writing in an introduction when I have the practical advice given in the body of the volume.
Let us be quite certain of this; no one promises anyone immunity from any weapon. Harold the Saxon was killed by an arrow, and I have no doubt that the first soldier who in battle met an arrow after being used to fighting with short-range weapons, thought it was an ungentlemanly and diabolical weapon to use.

Mr. Harold Macmillan: And the cross-bow.

Mr. Ede: Of course, the cross-bow. That is like the hydrogen bomb coming on top of the atomic bomb. There is no protection against high explosives in certain circumstances. I do not know what the modern Army thinks, but I was taught in the 1914–18 war that if the bullet had your number on it, it would get you; and most of us have recollections of things that almost proved the truth of that soldiers' saying. What we have to do when we are faced with any weapon is to devise as good an answer to it, and a protection from it, as we can.
The first answer to any form of attack of this kind is an effective active defence on the part of this country. That must come first. It is not for us to discuss that today. That will be a matter for discussion on Wednesday, and the House will not expect me—[Laughter.] I do not know why hon. Members opposite should smile, because dealing with anything of this kind is not a laughing matter at any time in the history of any country. On Wednesday that matter will be debated at greater length.
Also, we must have regard to the economic resources of the country when we have to deal with the scale in which either active or passive defence can be carried on. We have to balance—and we are doing it with the utmost care—between the three needs of active defence, passive defence, and the economic resources on which in the long run both the others will have to depend for their financing and carrying through.
We are, unfortunately, not in the position which we were in in the earlier days of which I was speaking, when the economic resources of the country appeared to be inexhaustible and were one of the great factors on which victory was achieved in the First World War. We live in a different world. We have to take account of the circumstances in which we live and, according to the resources we have available, to provide the maximum that we can. I believe that we shall be able to prove that we are doing that in this case.
I do not share the view that the atomic weapon need be decisive in the conflict, provided that we know what we have to meet and that we have made reasonable precautions towards meeting it. After all, the greatest weapon in the arsenal of any country is the element of surprise that it can spring on its enemies. I speak as one who served in the First World War in the gas and liquid fire brigade of the Royal Engineers. We had to meet the surprise that had been inflicted on our people by the use of gas by the Germans. I have no doubt that in any future war there will be surprises on both sides. Fortunately, we know enough of this weapon to be able to take some steps towards meeting what it can do.
I share the view that I have quoted from the book of the Association of Scientific Workers that we can take steps that will minimise the effects of this weapon, and I do not believe, on any information that we or anyone else has at the moment, that a large number of atomic bombs can be dropped by any country. We must make our preparations with that in our minds.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), said that we have got to keep out of war. I am quite sure there is not a Member in this House who does not hope that we may keep out of war. I believe that we are the most pacific of all the nations of the earth. We have a very long and glorious military record, but we do not desire war. Peace is always the best interest of this country, and will, to my mind, remain so for any period to which we may look forward tonight. But let us be certain of this; we stand for a way of life that cannot tolerate the world being run by force and by threats of force. Twice in


the lifetime of all of us we have seen this country pick up the challenge in a quarrel which was not directly its own because it believed that an effort was being made to rule the world by force and by the threat of force.
Let us be quite certain of this; if in our desire to keep out of war we betrayed the rest of the world into having to submit to force and the threat of force we should very soon find that the way of life for which we stand would have perished from the earth. Therefore, while I am quite certain that everyone desires to keep out of war, we have to face the grim fact that we are not the only arbiters of the decision whether there shall be war or not, but that if there is any use of force or threat of force we are not likely to start any movement which would justify any nation taking action against us because we have broken the rules I have just laid down.
May I say a few words about some of the technical points which have been raised? The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. S. Marshall) complained that we had not given direction and guidance. When I think of the complaints that are usually made aganist this side of the Committee with regard to our relationship with local authorities, I am glad to know that there are occasions when we are not accused of being dictators. I think we must leave a very large measure of discretion with the local authorities.
The hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) spoke about the schemes of last time. Let us place this on record; no scheme last time was ever approved. When the time came we had to act—I was then a member of a local authority; in fact, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam and I are two of the surviving chairmen of that local authority—and we had to deal with the situation as it developed. We applied the scheme where it fitted, and where it did not we just forgot about it. I hope members of local authorities will give just as much attention to framing their schemes on this occasion as they did on the last, and that they will see that they are made in such a form that no surprise shall throw them out of gear, but that they shall be adaptable when the occasion requires.
The hon. and gallant Member also asked me about the question of women in Civil Defence and the Women's Voluntary Services. No tribute I could pay would be too high for the work which the Women's Voluntary Services did in the last war and which they have done in all sorts of national emergency since. We welcome the Women's Voluntary Services. We think it would be a good thing that the women who are anxious to work in connection with Civil Defence and are members of the Women's Voluntary Services should formally enrol in the Civil Defence Corps and thereafter be able to deal, I hope very often, as members of Women's Voluntary Service groups, with various things that will come more particularly within the women's sphere.
I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) that we share her view that shelter in their own home is certainly the best form of shelter for people where it can be provided. I was a little surprised to hear of the ignorance of local topography which she claimed was shown by some members of the Civil Defence Force in her own locality. I have lively recollections of taking part in exercises in which we were told that most of the important roads which were well known had been rendered unusable, and the drivers of ambulances and other Civil Defence vehicles had to find their way without using the usual roads, to some point about which they were told.
That points to the need for recruitment before the time for action comes so that complete and thorough training can be undertaken by those willing to devote themselves to this great service. I hope that what I said earlier will re-inforce in people's minds the need for that. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), that I can well understand men weeping because they found themselves unable to help in dealing with an incident. That is another reason for them having enrolled beforehand so that they should be known. After all, the advent on the scene of a number of well-meaning people whose activities and qualifications are unknown to the person in charge may not be a help but a great hindrance. While I share their feeling of disappointment, I hope that that example will also be used as a means of assisting in recruitment now.
The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke) said that he felt that there was no sense of urgency. I hope I have given a sufficient reason for withholding until tonight a general appeal for recruits. But let there be no doubt from now onwards that His Majesty's Government and all those who have the welfare of our country at heart should an emergency arise, feel that there is now the greatest urgency that recruitment should be stepped up and that training should be undertaken.
The hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) said that volunteers were not released from other forms of service. I do not want Civil Defence, important as it is, to be the soft option for people who ought to take a more active share in the defence of their country. That is why I have said "No man under 30." If a man is under 30 years of age his proper place is in the Territorials. That is why I have had to make the arrangements which I have made in regard to the Z Reservists and other people. But to meet cases where there is doubt as to what the real duty of a person is, we are now engaged in trying to settle which of the various options should be put to a man as being the appropriate one for him.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman dealt with one matter which I should like to mention. The training figures he quoted were those dealing with the capital expenditure on the schools. More training is actually taking place this year for the smaller sum than took place before for the larger one. In conclusion, may I thank the House for the way in which this Debate has been conducted, and assure hon. Members that the Government will not be wanting in seeing that this important branch of our defence is adequately manned and financed.

Question put, and agreed to.

It being Half-past Nine o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16 (Business of Supply) to put forthwith the Questions, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in Classes I to IX of the Civil Estimates and of the Revenue Departments Estimates, the Ministry of Defence Estimate, the Navy Estimates, the Army Estimates and the Air Estimates.

[For details of the remaining Resolutions, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th July, 950; Vol. 477, c. 2602–2618.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1950–51

CLASS I

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND FINANCE

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Class I of the Civil Estimates,
put, and agreed to.

CLASS II

FOREIGN AND IMPERIAL

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class II of the Civil Estimates,
put, and agreed to.

CLASS III

HOME DEPARTMENT, LAW AND JUSTICE

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Class III of the Civil Estimates,
put, and agreed to.

CLASS IV

EDUCATION AND BROADCASTING

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Class IV of the Civil Estimates,
put, and agreed to.

CLASS V

HEALTH, HOUSING, TOWN PLANNING, LABOUR, NATIONAL INSURANCE, AND CONTRIBUTIONS TO LOCAL REVENUES

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class V of the Civil Estimates,
put, and agreed to.

CLASS VI

TRADE, INDUSTRY AND TRANSPORT

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class VI of the Civil Estimates,
put, and agreed to.

CLASS VII

COMMON SERVICES (WORKS, STATIONERY, &C.)

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Class VII of the Civil Estimates,
put, and agreed to.

CLASS VIII

NON-EFFECTIVE CHARGES (PENSIONS)

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class VIH of the Civil Estimates,
put, and agreed to.

CLASS IX

SUPPLY, FOOD AND MISCELLANEOUS SERVICES

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class IX of the Civil Estimates,
put, and agreed to.

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1950–51

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Revenue Departments Estimates,
put, and agreed to.

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ESTIMATE AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1950–51

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Ministry of Defence Estimate,
put, and agreed to.

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1950–51

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Navy Estimates,
put, and agreed to.

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1950–51

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Army Estimates,
put, and agreed to.

AIR ESTIMATES, 1950–51

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Air Estimates,
put, and agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS [20th July]

Resolution reported:
That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on 31st day of March, 1951, the sum of £1,857,265,078 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
Resolution agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Douglas Jay.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL

"to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and fifty-one, and to appropriate the Supplies granted in this Session of Parliament"; presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill No. 65.]

COAL MINING (SUBSIDENCE) BILL

Order read for consideration of Lords Amendments.

Clause 2.—(NATURE OF OBLIGATIONS OF NATIONAL COAL BOARD.)

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 38, at the end, insert:
Where a payment equal to the amount of depreciation is made under this subsection, the local authority shall not require the execution of any such works of repair to the dwelling-house as may be required in consequence of the subsidence damage thereto.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

9.34 p.m.

Mr. Brendan Bracken: Is the Minister not going to say anything about these Amendments? I think it shows a lack of courtesy to the House.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker): We accept the Amendments, and I hope that right hon. and hon. Members opposite will do the same. The Amendments carry out undertakings to which we have agreed before.

Mr. Bracken: The Minister's explanation slightly improves matters but, in point of fact, the first Amendment is an Opposition Amendment and, as the Minister of Fuel and Power will not congratulate the Opposition, the task is left to myself, and I do it with the greatest gusto. It shows once again how our legislation is improved by having an effective Opposition.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken) always congratulates himself before anyone else has a chance to do so, so I am discharged of the duty.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: in page 9, line 7, at the end end insert:

New Clause.—(CONTRIBUTIONS TOWARDS EXPENSES OF CLAIM.)

The National Coal Board may make such payments as may be prescribed by way of reimbursement of the expenses incurred by any person for the purpose of securing the carrying out of their obligations by the Board.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. Mainwaring: May I ask the Minister whether the new Clause is to apply to any applicant making a claim on the National Coal Board?

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir. The Clause is permissive but, subject to that, it does.

Question put, and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to [several with Special Entries].

HIGHWAYS (PROVISION OF CATTLE-GRIDS) BILL

Order read for consideration of Lords Amendments.

Lords Amendment: In line 25, at the end insert:

New Clause A.—(APPLICATIONS OF ENACTMENTS AS TO PERSONS DAMAGING HIGHWAYS.)

"A.—(1) So much of section seventy-two of the Highway Act, 1835, as relates to the causing of injury or damage to highways and to the wilful destruction or injury of the surface of highways shall apply to any cattle-grid provided in pursuance of this Act, any gate or other works on a road for use in connection with such a cattle-grid, and any gate or other works for the proper control of traffic passing over a by-pass for use in connection with such a cattle-grid, as it applies to a highway.
(2) Section fifty-four of the Road Traffic Act, 1930 (which enables a highway authority to recover from persons responsible for extraordinary traffic certain expenses incurred by the authority in repairing a road) shall have effect, in relation to any road to which that section applies, as if the references therein to expenses incurred by the highway authority in repairing the road included references to expenses incurred by the appropriate authority in repairing a cattle-grid provided for the road in pursuance of this Act.
(3) Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this section shall be construed as affecting the application of the said section seventy-two and fifty-four to a by-pass.
(4) This section shall apply to Scotland with the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (1) thereof—

'(1) So much of section ninety-six of the Act of the first and second year of King William the Fourth chapter forty-three (as incorporated in the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act, 1878) as relates to the doing, or causing to be done, of any injury or damage to the footpaths or causeways therein mentioned shall apply to any cattle-grid provided in pursuance of this Act, any gate or other works on a road for use in connection with such a cattle-grid, and any gate or other works for the proper control of traffic passing over a by-pass for use in connection with such a cattle-grid, as it applies to any such footpath or causeway.';


and with the substitution in subsection (3) thereof for the words 'seventy-two' of the words 'ninety-six'.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

9.40 p.m.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: This Clause was inserted in another place and was not considered in this House at all. I see that it brings into play Section LXXII of the Highway


Act of 1835 and I am sure it is very gratifying to find that the appalling penalty of 40s. applies to a person who damages cattle-grids as well as to one who damages highways and even to those who
shall play at Foothball or any other Game in any Part of the said Highways to the Annoyance of any Passenger or Passengers; or if any Hawker, Higgler, Gipsy, or any other Person travelling shall pitch any Tent, Booth, Stall, or Strand, or encamp, upon any Part of any Highway;"—
presumably that also applies to cattle grids—
or if any Person shall make or assist in making any Fire, or shall wantonly fire off any Gun or Pistol or shall set fire to or wantonly let off or throw any Squib, Rocket, Serpent"—
what is a serpent?—
or other Firework whatsoever, within Fifty Feet of the Centre of such Carriageway or such Cartway;
I am sure it is very satisfactory to know that these ancient privileges apply to this new cattle-grid to which many of us paid such attention when the Bill was before us.
There is also a more serious point. In another place doubt was expressed about whether a cattle-grid installed upon a byroad which was not considered capable of bearing very heavy vehicles ought to have some sort of warning notice assigned to it. I think the right hon. Gentleman should give some assurance that in a case where a cattle-grid is installed on such a by-road, there will not only be the usual statutory notice where the by-road begins, and where it leaves the main road, to the effect that such a road cannot stand a heavy vehicle like a tank or a tank-transporter or a large lorry, but that there should also be, where the cattle-grid is actually approached—as in the case often of a small bridge—a notice to say that that grid cannot stand the weight of the traffic which may be called upon to pass over it. In the same way as a bridge, although a cattle-grid will be built to bear the normal traffic which the road will bear, it should carry such a notice.
Clearly a situation might arise in which the driver of a heavy vehicle—or perhaps the military driver of a tank—in order to get to some field of operation or

training, would ignore the notice on the by-road which said that the road would not stand the weight of vehicle. He might make a guess at it and say, "We may do a little damage, but the damage cannot be more serious than simply breaking through the crust of the road." If, however, he has to pass over a cattle-grid which has been constructed to carry the same weight of traffic as the road, then the vehicle will crash through, great damage will be done and there will immediately arise the question, who is liable? I should be most grateful if the Minister would indicate that a second notice will be placed, in the same way as for a small bridge, saying that traffic over a certain weight cannot be borne by such a bridge or, in this case, by such a grid.

9.45 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): This Clause covers the serious point of the noble Lord's comment and has been inserted at the request of the County Councils Association. In the first subsection, dealing with Section LXXII of the Highway Act of 1835, the cattle-grid is classified as part of the highway. Under the 1835 Act, if any person wilfully damages the highway, then, by summary proceeding, the highway authority can recover the cost and impose a fine. It was considered by the County Councils Association that they should have the protection with regard to the cattle-grids.
It is Section 54 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, that covers the problem of damage by any heavy vehicle. That again has been inserted to meet the request of the county councils; but, of course, under the provisions that we made in the consideration of the Bill in this House a by-pass also is part of the highway, and so subsection (3) of this new Clause expressly excludes the by-pass whilst applying this provision to the cattle-grids which will be actually on the highway. I think it is a perfectly reasonable Amendment. It is one which we had not foreseen, to which the county councils drew our attention. I think it is only right that they should have the necessary protection.

Question put, and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to [several with Special Entries].

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT CHARGE)

9.47 p.m.

The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Dalton): I beg to move,
That the Town and Country Planning (Development Charge Exemptions) Regulations, 1950, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th July, be approved.
We have before us tonight new Regulations relating to development charge which I undertook to bring before the House when we were debating these matters on 13th June. I will make a few observations. I do not think that at this stage the House will wish to hear a very lengthy exposition, but I will make a few observations on the principal points in the Regulations, indicating how they link with the undertakings which I gave on 13th June.
I should like to make it quite clear that these Town and Country Planning (Development Charge Exemptions) Regulations do not in any respect affect the need to get planning permission. We have eased up on planning permission on a previous occasion. On this occasion no question of affecting planning permission is involved here at all. What is provided in these Regulations is that if planning permission is obtained in respect of any of these changes of use, then there will be no development charge. In other words, the Regulations apply directly to development charge exemptions and have no relation to planning permission.
The three principal exemptions are those which I forecast in the Debate on 13th June. The first relates to the enlargement of a dwelling-house; the second to the so-called lateral conversions of dwelling-houses; and the third to small shops created within dwelling-houses. The particulars are found in the Schedule; the detail is all in the Schedule, and the references I shall give are to the paragraphs of the Schedule.
Paragraph 1 deals with the enlargement of dwelling-houses, and it increases the amount by which a dwelling-house may be enlarged without payment of development charge from 10 per cent. of the cubic content or 1,750 cubic feet, whichever is the greater, to 10 per cent. or 7,500 cubic feet, whichever is the greater. This will, of course, bring a large number of extensions within the field of exemptions

which were not within it before, and generally will cover, broadly speaking, additions of three or four ordinary sized rooms to a dwelling-house.
The exemption will therefore cover all ordinary additions to dwelling-houses of modern size. The word "enlargement" here includes the erection of detached buildings; it need not be the same building; there may be detached buildings within the curtilage—as the lawyers say—a detached garage or any other detached building, provided it is within the maximum of 10 per cent. of the cubic footage of the house before enlargement or 7,500 cubic feet, whichever is the greater.
Paragraph 2 of the Schedule deals with lateral conversion, and provides that lateral conversion into flats of two or three, but not more than three, contiguous or adjacent houses will be exempted from development charge. This is confined, of course, to houses existing at the appointed day, but I think that has always been clearly understood.
The third case, dealt with in paragraph 3 (1), deals with shops and houses, We have been able to put that in rather simpler form than I thought would be necessary when I was referring to the matter on 13th June. We are simply providing that if a man wishes to use as a shop a part of the house in which he is living, he may do so without development charge, provided he gets planning permission, and provided the area so used does not exceed 200 square feet. I had thought that it might be necessary to have a more complicated formula involving the rateable value, but my advisers have advised me—I think wisely—that we should keep this as simple as we can. We will only have the criterion of 200 square feet as the amount of the house to be used as a shop, and the man must continue to live in the house; it is not intended that this should be a "lock-up" shop; it must genuinely be a part of the man's own dwelling-house which the man himself uses as a shop. A small post office would for this purpose count as a shop, which will meet the difficulty we have sometimes had with regard to post offices in rural districts.
Those are the three principal exemptions which I forecast and promised in Debate on 13th June, but we have also


embodied in these regulations one or two other exemptions which I hope and believe the House will generally welcome. For example, paragraph 3 (2) deals with what is sometimes called the "white elephant" house; that is to say, a house which is no longer convenient for its original residential use, and which is to be used for some social or institutional purpose—very often for a charity of some kind, a children's home, a nursing home, a crêche, a social centre, or any institutional or social use of that kind. In such a case also no development charge will be imposed, provided planning permission is obtained.
Paragraph 3 (3) is also, I think, a useful minor alleviation. It exempts changes between a shop and an office in either direction; no development charge is payable there. Paragraph 3 (5) enables changes to be made without incurring any development charge between any of the special industrial use classes.
I understand that it will not be in order to discuss the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order tonight. It has been laid and is available to Members. Under the provisions of Section 12 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, this type of Order requires neither a negative nor an affirmative Resolution, but if it were seriously objected to in any section of the House there would be other means of bringing the matter forward and putting the Minister upon his defence with regard to it. I am advised—and you will correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Speaker—that since this Order requires neither an affirmative nor negative Resolution, it is not in order to discuss it tonight. It is referred to in the Regulations. I think I have already explained that it makes certain changes enabling a greater facility of movement of use, and in future these changes of use will not be liable to a development charge.

Mr. Molson: May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker? The right hon. Gentleman is now explaining the uses to which premises may be put without becoming subject to development charge, and exactly what these uses are is dealt with in Statutory Instrument No. 1131. I suggest that it obviously is not easy for us entirely to understand the exact effect of the Regulations which the House is considering at the present

moment, if the Minister is precluded from explaining what are the uses which are dealt with in this other Order. Speaking for myself, it certainly would be helpful if that particular matter could be dealt with. I ask for your Ruling upon this matter as to whether, in order to understand what the House is now being asked to approve, we might not have the matter explained to us, even though that does deal with another Order which, under the provisions of the Act, has to be prayed against and does not require the affirmative consent of the House.

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that I cannot accept the proposition which the hon. Member has put forward. My advice was asked on the classes which have been referred to, and I indicated quite clearly that we cannot discuss what is already in the Order and therefore has been passed by the House and has nothing, except by way of definition, to do with these Regulations. We cannot go back and discuss what is in an Order which has been passed by the House. These are really definitions and nothing else, and if the hon. Member cannot understand what is referred to, he must refer back to the previous Order which will give him the information he requires.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Further to that point of order. I quite realise that it is not open to the House under the Rules of Order to discuss the contents of the various classes in the Order. What I do submit, Mr. Speaker, is that it is competent for us to ask the Minister to explain why, in respect of certain classes and certain classes only, the change from one class to another does not carry any development charge. I am not querying the content of the individual classes, but the effect of the Regulations which we are now discussing is to say that the change of use from one class to another, and not to all, is permitted without a development charge. I suggest that it is in order for us to ask the Minister to explain why he selected certain classes and not others for this particular privilege.

Mr. Speaker: I think not; I think that would be wrong. The question which the right hon. Gentleman would be asking is: why is something omitted from the Order?

Mr. Hudson: No.

Mr. Speaker: Surely, if the right hon. Gentleman asks for an explanation of what this means, and, therefore, why is not something else in the Order, that would be incorrect?

Mr. Hudson: No, I am asking why he has selected these classes in particular. It must be in order to ask why he selected certain classes for this privilege, even if we do not go on to ask him why he selected certain others. There must be some reason.

Mr. Speaker: I am a little nervous in these Debates lest we should range widely over the whole subject. If it is limited to that subject and to nothing else, then I should be prepared to admit it.

Mr. Dalton: I am entirely in your hands, Mr. Speaker. We will all, I am sure, accept your guidance. The view which I put was a view on which I had received learned advice. I should, of course, be perfectly prepared to answer questions and to expound, within limits, if desired so to do, but I was advised that it would not be in order tonight, although it would be perfectly in order to do so on another occasion in another form. This Order which has been made available to Members does not require, either tonight or at any other time, affirmative or negative approval, because under Section 12 of the 1947 Act, which was assented to at the time—there was no Debate on the procedure—the matter is not debatable on this occasion.

Mr. Speaker: My impression was that the right hon. Gentleman was asking why these particular classes had been selected.

Mr. Hudson: No, Sir, I am not query-the definition of these various classes. If you will look at the Town and Country Planning Order, Mr. Speaker, you will see that it consists of a schedule of various classes, and that inside each schedule there is a special industrial group A, a special industrial group B, and a special industrial group C. Before these Regulations we are now discussing were brought in, it was, as I understand it, impossible to change the use of a building in special industrial group A to use in special industrial group C without incurring a development charge. We are now saying that in certain cases, that use can be changed without a development charge, but only in certain cases.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is surely out of order. He is talking about another Order which has been passed by the House. We can talk about the present Regulations only, and nothing else.

Mr. Hudson: With respect, I could not agree more, but if you will be kind enough, Mr. Speaker, to look at the Regulations we are now discussing, you will see that they empower an owner of a building in one class, to alter the use of that building into another class without a development charge. What I am suggesting is that we should ask the Minister to explain why he has come to that conclusion. I am not querying at all the contents of the Order.

Mr. Speaker: I consider that to be outside the scope of these Regulations.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: Is not the position this: that the Order groups together certain uses, and that it would not be in order, for the reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman, to discuss that grouping, whereas the Regulations we are now discussing prescribe that it is possible to have a change between certain of these classes without attracting a development charge, and that therefore it would be in order to debate whether or not that interchange is rightly stated in the Regulations?

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid I must rule that we must stick to these Regulations and nothing else.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I have given my Ruling, and I am not prepared to hear any further arguments.

Mr. Dalton: I accept, as we all do, your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I shall not therefore make further reference to the Order. I was enumerating the various points in the Regulations, dealing first of all with the three concessions I indicated would be made on 13th June. I was speaking of what is called the "white elephant" concession, and then the changes between shop and office.
There are one or two further provisions in the Regulations I ought to mention. These are exemptions which have been promised from time to time since the 1948 Regulations were made. The first of these relates to conversions under the


Housing Act, 1949, when public money, financial assistance, is provided under Part II of that Act for the improvement of house property. Where conversions and improvements of this kind are carried out with financial assistance under Part II of the Act in future no development charge will be levied. This carries out an undertaking given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health on 30th May, 1949, and is in paragraph 5 of the Schedule to the Regulations.
I would draw attention to the provisions, which I hope will be helpful, in certain coastal areas and which are in paragraph 21, regarding sea or river defence works. In the 1948 Regulations the exemption for this class of work was confined to work carried out by local authorities and statutory undertakings. When the Coast Protection Bill of 1949 was going through the House, the undertaking was given that the exemption should be extended to works carried out by any developer, private person as well as public authority. If they carry out any sea or river defence work solely for the purpose of defence against erosion by the sea, or by the flow of a river, that also will be exempted from development charge.
Those are the principal provisions. I have little doubt that, so far as they go, they will be welcome. They are an illustration of the effort which, as I have told the House before, I am making at the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, in view of the fact that legislation for the moment does not seem to be likely to be practicable, to do what we can to ease the burden of development charge upon certain sections of the community by administrative action. As I told the House when we spoke of this before I have received a valuable report on the subject from Sir Thomas Phillips, Chairman of the Central Land Board, and his colleagues. I am also indebted to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors for the valuable report they have made on the subject. Certain proposals embodied in these Regulations are due to the suggestions made by the Surveyors.
I hope therefore that the House will approve these Regulations which at any rate move a certain distance within a rather complicated field in the direction of relieving from development charge a

large number of developments which in our view should not be so burdened.

10.8 p.m.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: A short time ago the right hon. Gentleman described his intentions which he has now embodied in the Regulations which are before the House as, "a small experiment in freedom." All I can say is that it is very small. We take the view that the bulk of the restrictions he has removed are restrictions which should never have been imposed.
One of the great objects of this Town and Country Planning Bill, and the Regulations made under it, was to try to secure sound planning, and at the same time to accumulate from the persons who benefited by development contributions towards the £300 million which was earmarked for paying compensation to persons who suffered hardship through deprivation of development to which otherwise they might have been entitled.
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman made reference to the very valuable report of the Chartered Surveyors' Institution, and I congratulate him upon having taken some of it to heart. Surely one of the objects of his Department ought to be to make the whole of this matter as simple and as economical in manpower as possible. I am not blaming him personally, but there is no doubt that the action of his predecessor in imposing the original Regulations was directly contrary to that principle. A great deal of trouble and expense was involved in trying to settle development charges which were really de minimis. I am glad to welcome the steps which the right hon. Gentleman is taking in the Regulations to diminish this burden. The report to which he referred goes a very great deal further than he has gone. It would be out of order for me to state in detail where he has not carried out a particular suggestion.

Mr. Dalton: A lot of it would involve legislation.

Mr. Hudson: Some of it undoubtedly would, but a great deal could be done by administrative action. We hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be encouraged by his success in this very small experiment to continue the good work and to simplify matters still further. I am certain that every hon. Member would agree


that the emergency facing us today is bound to impose a heavy burden on the taxpayer and on manpower. That imposes the duty on the Government to do everything they can to simplify the administration of this kind of Measure.
It is notable that a house which the right hon. Gentleman described as a "white elephant" is only to be allowed to be used for an asylum or a child nursery. We would like to know why the right hon. Gentleman picked on those two and why he did not do the obvious and logical thing of enabling such a house to be used to increase the inadequate housing facilities of the country by being used as a guest house or hostel. We welcome the raising of the limit from £1,750 to £7,500 for lateral conversion into flats or conversion of adjacent houses. We are glad that the Minister is carrying out the pledge given by the Minister of Health during the passage of the Housing Bill, when a proposal was put forward by this side and was withdrawn, in view of the promise by the Minister that the present right hon. Gentleman would insert the necessary provisions in these Regulations.
We are very grateful for that, but we believe that the suggestions in the memorandum on town and country planning which was put forward by the Surveyors' Institution can be carried out without legislation. The original idea which was present—and, I think, accepted—in the minds of all hon. Gentlemen when the Town and Country Planning Bill was going through the House was that the development charge should not be 100 per cent. but something nearer 80, and we still believe that that change can be made without legislation because the change from 80 to 100 per cent. was made by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor as an administrative act.
As far as the changes from one class of use to another are concerned, all we can say is that, in the absence of any explanation why the right hon. Gentleman has confined these changes to certain classes, we cannot understand the principles that guided him. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that he has not been allowed to give an explanation to the House as to why, for example, he included classes XIII, XIV, XV, XVI and XVII in paragraph 3 (2), but I suppose that we have to be thankful for small mercies.
If hon. Members will look at the Order we are discussing they will be very interested to see that, unlike the past, anyone who was engaged in the distilling, refining or blending of oils—to take one example at random—will be entitled in future to change his business or his building and become a breeder of maggots from putrescible animal matter. No doubt, he will be able to do that for the first time without having to pay a development charge.
That is a very small experiment in freedom. The right hon. Gentleman has, I gather, been responsible in the Labour Party for a large number of official documents. There was one recently, a duncoloured document about which there was a certain amount of difficulty—

Mr. Dalton: Has the right hon. Gentleman read it?

Mr. Hudson: Yes, I have read it There was an earlier one called "Let us Face the Future." I offer, free, a title for the next document which the right hon. Gentleman issues—"Set the maggots free."

10.19 p.m.

Mrs. Middleton: While I welcome very cordially the exemption from development charge outlined in the Order, I should like to put one point of elucidation to my right hon. Friend. Paragraph 2 states that buildings in category (c) can be exempted from development charge
Other than a building which sustains war damage in respect of which the War Damage Commission have determined that the war damage involved total loss and that a value payment is appropriate.
Will my right hon. Friend make clear why that category of buildings has been exempted, and why it has not been decided also to exempt buildings rebuilt under War Damage Commission cost of works awards? That is the only point I want to raise and, as it will affect my constituency, I would like some more information on it.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Yes, but it would be out of order.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: It is a gratifying if rather infrequent occupation to congratulate a member of the present administration upon his actions,


but I would like to join my right hon. Friend in congratulating, not wholly unreservedly but in the main, the right hon. Gentleman on the Order we are discussing this evening. I can congratulate him dually both on the question of its form and of its substance. On the question of its form, the Minister of Town and Country Planning and his predecessor have adopted the helpful practice, when extensive amendments are made of these complicated regulations, of revoking the previous Regulation and modifying all the matter in one comprehensive document. That practice has been followed in this case.
I have one criticism to make in the matter of form; or, at any rate, if it is not a criticism, it is a query which I hope will be dealt with. A good deal of what appears in the present Regulations appeared also in the previous Regulations of 1948 but, for some reason, the Order in which this common matter appears is varied considerably in the present Regulations. It may be that the Minister will be able to say that it follows some logical pattern. If it does so I have been unable to discern it. If there is no logical pattern, the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is much more convenient to preserve the general order of the present Regulations; otherwise, just when people have become accustomed to the order of one set of Regulations, they have to get accustomed to quite a different order in the superseding set.
The main substance of this Order is welcome, but some of the concessions have been given with rather a niggardly hand. In my view, when a concession is made on a point of principle it ought to be made generously. I will illustrate that by drawing attention to two of the matters to which the Minister has already referred; that is to say, the matter which appears in paragraph 2 of the Schedule and the one which appears in paragraph 3 (1).
The concession made in regard to the conversion of flats is restricted to the conversion of three adjacent buildings. Why should it be so restricted? This is not a matter of planning control. It is still necessary to get a planning permission to effect this kind of conversion. This is merely a financial matter of paying development charge in respect of development

which, because it has a planning permission, is presumably desirable development. It may be that the normal figure would be three, but there must obviously be cases where it is desirable to convert more than three adjacent terrace houses into flats.
Would the Minister say why it has been found necessary to confine this concession to the conversion of three adjacent houses only into flats? In my view, it is inhibiting the chances of the best development and therefore of the best town planning, to put an economic sanction on some forms of conversion into flats but not on others and to draw an arbitrary and inflexible line of demarkation between the two.
The other point raises a similar principle: that is to say, the change of use for a part of a house into a shop is only exempt from development charge if the part to be used as a shop does not exceed 200 square feet. Again, why that arbitrary and inflexible figure? In some cases, clearly it may be desirable to use a little more, just as in some cases it would be desirable to use rather less, than 200 square feet. I would say in passing that 200 square feet is not a very large superficial area for carrying on a shop.
My right hon. Friend referred to some of the rather surprising consequences of the Order in giving exemption from the development charge in respect of inter-changeability between use classes, and he specified as an example the fact that it is now possible for a distiller and, I think, a breeder of maggots to interchange without the payment of development charge. It is difficult to see what is the bond between them. Whereas the breeding of maggots, I should have thought, is an offensive trade, distilling is probably part of our trade offensive in the getting of dollars, but I cannot think that that is the only reason which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind.
Another rather curious example comes in paragraph 3 (3) of the Schedule, which permits the interchange of use between an office and a tripe shop without payment of a development charge. The right hon. Gentleman has a good deal more experience of office than most of us, and it may be that he has reasons buried deep in his own experience for including such


an interchange of use. These are surprising provisions, albeit they are at any rate welcome as concessions, although, perhaps, concessions that may not have very frequent practical effect.
I should like to deal with three very short points of detail with which I hope the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary will deal when replying. The first relates to paragraph 2 of the Schedule, to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. What is the intention regarding a house which was vacant on the appointed day but of which the last use was residential? It should be covered, I think, by the Order, but is not in fact covered by the present words. The second point arises from paragraph 10 (3). It is a very small point, but I raise it because, although this is an Order which on the whole expands the right to development free of charge, this subparagraph relates to:
The erection or construction and the maintenance, improvement or other alteration of roadside milk churn stands.
In a comparison with the wording of the previous regulations which are now revoked, the words therein used were:
whether on land used for the purpose of agriculture or not.
Would the Minister explain why it has been found necessary to narrow down that definition in the present Order?
The third and last point is one to which the Minister referred, regarding the use of part of a house as a shop. The right hon. Gentleman made it clear that in his view it was necessary for the man living in the house to be the same man as is carrying on the shop. That is not entirely clear from the wording of the Order, and it may be that a court would put a different interpretation on the wording than is the Minister's intention. Is the Minister convinced that the view he has expressed is the more desirable of the two? There may well be circumstances when a man either wishes to discontinue the running of the little shop or wishes to live elsewhere, and there might be occasions on which what has started as a joint undertaking, residentially and as a shop, should be split. I would be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister would deal with that point as well. Subject to these matters, in my view this is a welcome Order and goes, at any rate, some degree towards giving

a desirable relief in the matter of development charge.

10.31 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Like every other preceding speaker, I also welcome these Regulations. I hope my right hon. Friend will not stop here. I have never been shocked more than in connection with the administration of the Town and Country Planning Act, and I know three ordinary working-class people who were shocked by what happened in connection with development charge. Would my right hon. Friend be good enough to look again into the administration of this Act. I am not blaming him, because he is not responsible for that. I was in the House when the Bill was passed, but if I had my time over again, I would not vote for development charge in any Bill.

10.32 p.m.

Mr. Molson: Like everyone else who has spoken tonight, I would like to express my appreciation of what the right hon. Gentleman has done in trying to simplify the administration of this Act. I think he has done very well in bringing these Regulations before the House tonight. Like the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), I hope he will not weary in well doing and will continue to look for opportunities to simplify what is turning out to be a somewhat onerous act. If I were to suggest two ways in which that could be done, I should no doubt be out of order.
I shall confine myself to asking two questions with regard to the effect of these Regulations. The first is the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith). Why is it that in the case of the conversion of existing houses into flats, exemption from development charge applies only to houses that were in existence on the appointed date? The right hon. Gentleman suggested that we should know why restriction was maintained and perhaps I ought to know, but I am afraid I do not. It occurs to me that there may well be cases in future where it would appear to be desirable to make into flats for the accommodation of several families a house built since the appointed day, and it is undesirable that that conversion should be penalised by levying a development charge.
My other point is a new one. Am I right in understanding that paragraph 13 of the Schedule for the first time exempts the National Coal Board from development charge in respect of their operations? We discussed this matter fully when the Bill was in Committee and I think it was the decision of the Committee, supported by the House, that the development charge which was to be payable by private industry and private enterprise ought equally to be payable by statutory undertakers and the National Coal Board and all analogous services, if the effect of these Regulations is to exempt the National Coal Board from development charge of this kind, I should like to know what is the reason for that.

Sir William Darling: I see the Secretary of State for Scotland is represented here. May I remind the House that under this important Act, Scotland—

Mr. Speaker: We have not got to Scotland yet; we are still discussing England.

Sir W. Darling: I am on safer ground when speaking to the English Regulations now before the House. I was disappointed to learn that in the rebuilding paragraph—and that is the only one to which I wish to refer, one is entitled to rebuild so long as the cubic content of the premises is not exceeded by one-tenth. I ask the Minister representing England and Wales whether he thinks that is a suitable development. I have in mind an hotel which it is desirable should be brought into accordance with modern tourist needs and an extension of one-tenth without a development charge is quite inadequate for that purpose.
There is a growing desire to have a separate bathroom with each room, and if one considers the case of an hotel with 20 bedrooms where there are only four bathrooms, such an extension would invoke a development charge. I therefore ask the Minister, if, as I know he is, he is deeply interested in developing the tourist industry, and considers it is desirable to improve the sanitary conditions of the premises to be used, whether in the interests of developing the tourist industry one-tenth is adequate? I suggest it is inadequate, and I hope that, with other matters he has to consider, he will bear this point in mind.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. Dalton: If I may, by leave of the House, I will reply to some of the questions that have been put. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) asked about the "white elephant," and why we had limited the switches. As a matter of fact if the white elephant house—as we call it and we all understand what it means—is transformed into flats, there is no development charge. If it was previously a residence and is continuing as a residence, there will be no change in use. If it continues to be used as a residence, without conversion to flats, no question of development charge will arise. If it is converted into flats, there will be no development charge payable in that case. The other uses mentioned are mainly charitable and non-profit making, and it seemed right that we should exempt them from a development charge.
On the other hand, if it is going to be transformed into an hotel, that is, and will be, a substantial profit-making business and, therefore, seems to fall into a different category, and a development charge would be chargeable in the event of that particular change.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman: it is an important matter that wants clearing up. Surely the Minister is trying to make a distinction where there is no difference. A "white elephant" house would hardly be used as a home for incurables or an institution with the object of losing money or not making money. Is there any difference between running the show as an institution for the reception of patients and running it as a guest house for the reception of guests.

Mr. Dalton: The guests would pay, and there would be a profit ensuing, but in the other case the matter is handled as part of the local authority's activities and there is no comparable profit. I think that is clear. In many cases not only the local authorities but private charities are taking over the houses, and as a charity is defined—and I am no lawyer and they will correct me if I am wrong—as an undertaking in which no private profit accrues it seemed reasonable in the case of a charity that there


should be exemption, but where a private profit did accrue there should not. That is the reason why we have drawn the distinction.

Mr. Molson: I respectfully doubt whether that distinction has been correctly drawn in this case. For example, in the case of a nursing home there might very well be a profit made, whereas in the case of a boarding school, which is excluded, no profit would be made.

Mr. Dalton: We cannot over-complicate these Regulations. We have to take the broad typical cases and, broadly speaking, an hotel—which was the case raised from the other side of the House—makes a profit and in my view that is not a suitable case for exemption from development charge. On the other hand whether the typical case is a charitable use, there would not be a profit and it seemed to me that this should be exempted from development charge.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: If the right hon. Gentleman will look at page 4 of the Order, he will see that one of the classes is the use as a home, etc.,
a convalescent home or a nursing home.
I am sure it is not suggested that either a convalescent home or a nursing home is not run for profit. It does not say a nursing home run by a local authority. Surely the right hon. Gentleman will agree that both institutions are run for profit?

Mr. Speaker: We are now discussing another Order. We cannot discuss two Orders at the same time. The one in which boarding houses, etc., appear is not the Order that we are discussing.

Mr. Hudson: It is a question of whether the "white elephant" case is under one of these classes.

Mr. Molson: With great respect, the point the right hon. Gentleman was making is that a certain criterion had been drawn and in order to see whether it has been correctly drawn, it was necessary to understand exactly what the different classes of user were, and only by referring to the Order to see what is included in these various classes is it possible to see whether the criterion has been correctly drawn.

Mr. Dalton: We cannot over-complicate these Orders and I do not think I shall get the matter better understood, but I shall try once more to put it. Hotels in practically all cases are run for profit. Sometimes they make a large profit and sometimes they make none, but the purpose is to make a profit and there is nothing wrong with that. But a charitable hotel is a contradiction in terms as far as I understand it. On the other hand, many nursing homes are run as part of the Health Service or as charitable activities. As these uses are in many cases charitable, and in many cases public in the sense that they are within the public sector, we have decided to exempt them even though there may be some cases in which a profit may be made. Instead of being criticised for that, I think we ought to be congratulated.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: It is rather important to know whether the right hon. Gentleman was giving the House an accurate description. If he will read again the Order—and after all we have to look at the Order to see how the various classes are defined—he will see that under Class XIV, under which I am suggesting a "white elephant" might well fall there is a nursing home or convalescent home
(other than a hospital, home … included in Class XIV).
It must therefore be clear that the use under Class XIV is use by a private person, for the most part for profit.

Mr. Dalton: We are again on the Order which you, Mr. Speaker, have ruled cannot today be discussed, and therefore I must ask permission not to discuss that further. I am bowing to the Ruling of the Chair, as I am sure the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) will also do.
My hon. Friend the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Mrs. Middleton) asked a question with regard to war-damaged houses. The position here is that war-damaged houses which have attracted value payment are excluded from this particular exemption, because the main effect if they were not included would be to increase the site value of the property.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: On a point of order. We were told that it would not be in


order to explain why certain things were not included in these Regulations. We on this side of the House have been very careful to avoid raising such questions. We are dealing here with Regulations and what is in them. I am sorry to insist on this but, after all, a great deal of what hon. Members on this side wished to say was ruled out of order. This is a Third Reading speech, not a Second Reading speech, and reference cannot be made to things which are not in the Regulations.

Mrs. Middleton: Further to that point of order. As I understood Mr. Speaker's Ruling, the point which I raised does not refer to any Order which has been decided by the House on any other occasion, and therefore it does not come within the Ruling which you gave.

Mr. Dalton: There are two documents which have been circulated to hon. Members and which have attracted the interest of hon. Members who have spoken in this Debate. One I call for short "the Regulations"; the other I call for short "the Order." Mr. Speaker has ruled that reference to the Order should not be made. My hon. Friend is not making any reference to the Order; she is referring to the Regulations. Therefore, it is in order for me to reply to her. What she has asked she might equally have been asked if there were no Order.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Perhaps I have not made myself clear. As I understand it, we are confined very strictly, in discussing the Regulations, to what is in the Regulations. Personally I think that is bad, but it is the rule of the House.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is correct. As far as complaining that something is not in the Regulations is concerned, that is out of order.

Mr. Dalton: I am glad to be successively excused from answering a series of questions. If they had been in order I would have done my best. As it is ruled that they are not, I must pass on. Perhaps the hon. Lady will have a quiet talk with me. Now I will deal with some of the other queries.

Mr. John Hynd: There are other hon. Members who are interested in this. If value payments are included in these Regulations, surely it is

permissible to explain why they are included, and the difference between them and other forms of war damage payments.

Mr. Speaker: The Regulations do not deal with war damage as a whole, but merely with one particular point. One cannot discuss the whole matter on these Regulations.

Mr. Dalton: I will "have a go" now at the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson). He asked about the Coal Board and its position in regard to these Regulations. If the hon. Member looks at paragraph 13 he will see that the Coal Board, in this respect, has no privileged position; it is neither over-privileged nor under-privileged. It is in the same position as other industrial firms in this regard.
The hon. Member for The High Peak also raised a matter with regard to conversions. The point he raised was why this conversion is limited to houses in existence on the appointed day. If I understood him aright, he thought that this concession ought to apply to houses built, or completed, after the appointed day. It is assumed that having built his house, or a series of adjacent houses, a man might want to knock holes in the wall and take advantage of the lateral conversion concession. In the first place, I think it is rather soon to consider converting houses built since the appointed day. Further, I think it would be fair to say that any person who has built a house since the appointed day—and not such a large number have been able to do that, but those who have—will have built the house with full knowledge of the Regulations, and this concession should be confined to houses of greater age.
The hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) raised several points, including that of arrangements. He asked why we have changed the order, and said some kindly things about the form in which these, and some earlier Regulations under the Act, had been set out. The answer to that is that the previous Regulations follow the Third Schedule to the Act of 1947; in drafting these new Regulations, it seemed to me, and to those who advise me, that since these cover a much wider field than the Third Schedule caters for, it would be better to begin with exemptions covering ordinary property—and these are the preliminary items in the


Schedule—and to put after those, provisions touching upon special kinds of property. That—and I think that the House will agree—seems logical, and that is the reason why the change was made.
The hon. Gentleman also spoke about what, under paragraph 2 of the Schedule, was the position with regard to a vacant house. The answer is that, if the last tenancy was residential, that covers the matter; the vacant house is deemed for this purpose to be used as it was last used before it became vacant.
He also asked a question with regard to the concession to use part of the house as a shop, and whether I thought it wise to make a limitation that the person living in the house must be the person keeping the shop. Here, the answer is that we are primarily seeking to benefit the "small" man living in a house, who wants to use it as a small shop or sub-post office, and it seemed to me that the best way of assisting him would be by a concession of this sort. It is not designed to make a lot of landlord and tenant arrangements whereby one lives in the house, and another comes in and uses part of the place as a shop; that is not the idea.

Mr. Summers: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the term "shop" as used in this context would refer to a room used as a sub-post office?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, that is one of the cases which we consider most desirable to cover. It is felt that especially in villages it is very hard that development charge should be imposed on such a change, and I have had that point particularly in mind.
The hon. Member for Hertford raised a further point, and that is why we should limit it to three. If one is making the conversion of more than three adjacent terrace houses all as one part of a single operation, then that becomes a major development and it seemed that we could justify development up to three as being minor. I would tell the hon. Gentleman that the original proposal to me was that we should allow only two, but I thought that that was a little restrictive. But to go further than that is a major development, which it is not reasonable to exempt.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Does the Minister contemplate that if a lateral conversion

of more houses is carried out, the development charge will be on the whole conversion or only on the excess over the three?

Mr. Dalton: I would rather not give a "snap" answer, but I promise the hon. Gentleman that I will take advice on that point. My guess would be—I must not be bound by this—that it would only relate to the conversion in excess of the three, but I may be wrong. I will take advice and let the hon. Gentleman know. The Lord Advocate tells me I am wrong. Well, we will look further into the matter. I will not take "snap" legal advice any more than I will give "snap" legal answers.

The question was raised, also I think by the hon. Member for Hertford, as to whether 200 square feet was not rather on the small side. It was meant to be rather on the small side. This is meant to benefit the small people in the conditions I have described. It is not intended to facilitate very large-scale conversions of large types of houses. There are some serious planning objections, apart from other considerations. Wherever I had drawn a line, I should be asked why I did not make the ceiling higher. Two hundred square feet is pretty fair. When I introduced the Regulations, I said it is a very simple criterion and much simpler and easier to administer than some of the alternatives I have been considering.

My hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), said he was against all development charges. That is a large and debatable matter and he will not want me to seek to deal with that point now.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I think my right hon. Friend will receive a letter from me tomorrow morning written by a constituent of mine, who is an ordinary working man, and who is asked for £500 development charge. How would the right hon. Gentleman like that himself?

Mr. Dalton: It would depend on how much profit I was going to make out of the development. If my hon. Friend has written me a letter, I will give it very careful consideration. If it is as much as £500, a good deal is going on.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Nothing has started "going on" yet.

Mr. Dalton: I will look into that in connection with what my hon. Friend is forwarding to me. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling), thought that 7,500 cubic feet was rather on the small side. No, I think that is wrong. I think the hon. Gentleman perhaps did not apprehend that there was an alternative ceiling for dwelling-houses of 7,500 cubic feet. He spoke of the 10 per cent. being rather on the small side. Of course, if the 7,500 cubic feet is greater than the 10 per cent., then the 7,500 cubic feet is the governing measure, and I do not think that is too mingy. As a matter of fact, a good deal can be done by making full use of this ceiling. At any rate, we begin by seeking to benefit people of relatively small means, which is the whole idea of these Regulations. I hope that having answered all the questions put to me which you, Sir, have not ruled out of order, we may now have the Regulations.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That the Town and Country Planning (Development Charge Exemptions) Regulations, 1950, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th July, be approved.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING, (SCOTLAND)

10.59 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Miss Herbison): I beg to move,
That the Town and Country Planning (Development Charge Exemptions) (Scotland) Regulations, 1950, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th July, be approved.
These Regulations are similar in content to those which the House has just discussed and agreed to.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: We on this side of the House have upon occasions thought it our duty to criticise His Majesty's Government for following too slavishly the precedents set in English and Welsh legislation, but I think we would have just cause for complaint upon this occasion if the Scottish Office had not followed the precedent set by the Minister of Town and Country Planning in England and Wales. We welcome these Regulations. We think that perhaps they do not go far enough in certain respects,

but we welcome them none the less. For my part, I am glad to see that they include many of the alterations for which I asked in a speech that I made in the House in opening the Debate on 13th June last.
There are one or two things that we cannot, perhaps, understand. It is still not possible to change a wholesale repository to a warehouse, or vice versa, without the liability to development charge. It is still not possible to change from a cinema to a dance hall without incurring the liability to development charge. But these are matters of detail, and broadly we welcome the Regulations.
I am not inviting the hon. Lady to make another speech, but I hope that she will look at paragraph 17 when it comes to be worked in practice. Under this paragraph a local authority is allowed to erect things like 'bus shelters, cattle troughs, or public drinking fountains without incurring liability to development charge. So is a public undertaker, but a private individual is not. There are many cases in rural areas in Scotland where landowners or farmers, with the approval of the local authorities and after securing planning permission, have erected small 'bus shelters for the benefit of children in the neighbourhood waiting in inclement weather for the school 'bus.
That is a desirable thing, and the erection of these shelters, subject to the appropriate planning permission being obtained, should be encouraged and not discouraged. I hope that some means—no doubt the Lord Advocate could suggest some legal method—can be found whereby local authorities or the statutory undertakers can act as agents for private individuals desiring to make these developments without any liability for development charge arising. Again, this is a matter of detail in Regulations which, broadly speaking, we welcome.

11.4 p.m.

Sir William Darling: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Angus, North (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) in his remarks about the similarity of these Regulations to those for England. There are eight pages to the Scottish Regulations and only six in the English ones. Perhaps the hon. Lady could indicate what advantages we are getting.
The only point I wish to take up relates to the general line of argument that there has been too slavish a copying of the English pattern without regard to Scottish circumstances. There is no use in having special legislation for Scotland unless, if there are distinctions, they are set forth in the appropriate Regulations. Paragraph 3 (3) of the Schedule contains a reference to something which I know does not exist in Scotland, and I challenge the Lord Advocate or the Joint Under-Secretary to tell me where it exists. I know of no such place in Scotland as a cat's-meat shop. It is a typical English characteristic, and the introduction of these places is an irrelevancy as far as Scotland is concerned.
That is slavish copying under the influence of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, and the hon. Lady will find it difficult to give me any address of such a place, if I should want it. This new departure is unsought, undeserved and undesirable. If these are the greater freedoms she wishes to confer on us, I beg her to think again, and to read Scottish history.
The other odd reference occurs in paragraph 10 (3), which contains the right to erect a stand for a milk churn without development charge. There will be much joy in the agricultural community tonight when they know that this new freedom is being conferred upon them. Paragraph 10 (3) says that in future the erection and other alteration of roadside milk churn stands will be free from any development charge. This is a great achievement, and I congratulate the hon. Lady on conferring it on Scotland. Her name will be long remembered as that of the hon. Lady who freed milk churn stands in Scotland.

11.6 p.m.

Commander Galbraith: The first paragraph of these Regulations states:
In exercise of the powers conferred on me by proviso (b) to subsection (2) of section 66 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947(a), and of all other powers enabling me in that behalf I hereby with the consent of the Treasury make the following Regulations:—
Can the hon. Lady inform the House what those powers are? I personally am in doubt about what they may be.
I would also like to call attention to the words in paragraph 17. It had always

been my impression that where farmers introduced water into their fields, it was free of development charge, and in fact received assistance from the Department of Agriculture to the extent of half the cost. But now I am in doubt whether this is so, because I find in the paragraph that the erection and construction by local authorities or statutory undertakers of horse troughs is free from development charge, which would seem to imply that where these are put in by private persons they are subject to the charge. Could the hon. Lady explain whether private persons putting water into their fields for the use of their cattle and horses can do so without this charge?

11.8 p.m.

Miss Herbison: Few points have been raised by Scottish Members. The one raised by the hon. Member for Angus, North (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) was a fair one. I find, on taking advice, that the type of case of a private person putting up a shelter for children would attract no development charge, and that if it did it would be covered by a local authority or possibly by a statutory Undertaker; but it certainly would not attract development charge. In regard to the first words, I am informed that they appeared in previous Regulations, and there does not seem to me to be any important reason for them other than making these Regulations apply with the others. These 1950 Regulations really combine all other Regulations made previously, and for that reason the statement has been put in the first paragraph.

Commander Galbraith: But what are the "other powers"? Can the hon. Lady tell us? If there are no other powers these words should not be repeated just because they have been in some previous Regulations.

Miss Herbison: They refer to the general regulation-making powers that we have under the Act. The only other point that has been raised which is important is the one on development charge to farmers. The case is that all agricultural developments are really free of development charge.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Is the hon. Lady certain about the accuracy of the information she has given? She said these Regulations are bound up with earlier Regulations, and are to be read


with them. But these Regulations revoke the earlier Regulations, and must be regarded as standing on their own feet. Therefore, the query of my hon. and gallant Friend still surely stands: what are the other powers to which reference is made? We understand the powers in the Act, but what are the "other powers"? I am bound to say in fairness to the Scotsmen that I ought to have made the same query on the English Regulations. We should be interested to know what are the other powers, both in Scotland and in England, to which reference has been made. We believe that there are not any other powers.

Miss Herbison: I explained that these covered the general powers under the Act for the making of Regulations.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That the Town and Country Planning (Development Charge Exemptions) (Scotland) Regulations, 1950, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th July, be approved.

ALLOTMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put (pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Public Bills relating exclusively to Scotland)), "That the Bill be committed to the Scottish Standing Committee."—[Mr. T. Fraser.]

Question agreed to.

Bill (deemed to have been read a Second time) committed to the Scottish Standing Committee.

ALLOTMENTS (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[King's Recommendation signified.]

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Resolved:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to allotments in Scotland and to abolish restrictions on the keeping of hens and rabbits, it is expedient to authorise—


(a) the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of—

(i) any expenses incurred by a Minister of the Crown or government department in paying compensation under the said Act; and
(ii) any increase attributable to the passing of the said Act in the sums which under any other enactment, are payable out of moneys so provided; and

(b) the payment into the Exchequer of any sums received by a Minister of the Crown or government department by way of compensation under the said Act."—[Mr. J. Fraser.]

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

ENDOWED SCHOOLS, HERTFORDSHIRE

11.13 p.m.

Mr. John Grimston: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying him to withhold his Consent from such parts of the Scheme in the Matter of certain Educational Foundations in the County of Hertford, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th June, as relate to the Foundations described in the Schedule thereto as the Aspenden Educational Foundation, the Esdras Bland Foundation, Buckland, the Cathcart and Yarborough Educational Foundation, Tewin, the Francis Combe's Foundation, Watford, the Elizabeth Ann Lucas's Educational Foundation, Hitchin, the Henry Soames Foundation, Cottered, the Thompson and Crossland Educational Foundation, Watton-at-Stone, the David White's Foundation, Abbot's Langley, the Cross Street Prize Fund, St. Albans, the Merriton Educational Foundation, Sacombe, and the Fawbert and Barnard's Educational Foundation, Saw-bridgeworth, and to the Funds specified in paragraph 14 thereof.
This Prayer is against a scheme which has a special importance because it is the first of a number of schemes which are to be presented by the Minister of Education. It is inevitable that the pattern which is established by this scheme will be followed in others, and consequently it is right that Parliament should examine the first one somewhat more carefully than normally.
The history of the scheme is roughly this. Under a number of Education Acts, from 1869 to 1948, the duty of educating the children of the country has progressively been taken over by the State or the public at large and consequently a number of trusts established on the deaths of certain people over a number of years have lost the original purpose


for which the money was left. Consequently, schemes have been made to apply this money for the general purposes of education.
Under the most recent Act of 1948, the idea is to make two kinds of foundation or scheme, namely, ecclesiastical in respect of church money, and secular in respect of all money which is not ecclesiastical. The scheme against which we are praying is a secular scheme. I believe that an ecclesiastical one is to follow. Consequently, the point at issue this evening is whether or not these schemes are properly made and whether certain of these foundations are in fact secular or ecclesiastical. We are not against the principle of the scheme at all, and that is why the Prayer is framed to pray against only part of the scheme and leave the major part intact.
Hertford is a county which many of us feel has gone further than most in taking advantage of the opportunities since the war, and consequently we do not object—in fact, we are almost proud—that we should have been selected as the "guinea pig" on this occasion. We must be absolutely clear that the trusts which are put into the secular foundation are in fact not church money. There are two particular points in the Prayer. The first one relates to the treatment given to grammar schools, about which I will say no more, leaving that to be dealt with by my hon. Friends. The second relates to a number of small educational foundations which are all mentioned in the Prayer.
Two of these small foundations have already been prayed against in another place and the argument advanced there by the Government is roughly summed up in these words: in none of the clauses of the scheme is there any mention of the Church of England, and secondly, the Minister is bound to take the view that educational foundations have not in any way a denominational flavour. Let us examine the details of some of these schemes and see whether they have or have not a denominational flavour.
Starting in alphabetical order, there is the Aspenden Educational Foundation. It was originally provided from money given by Bishop Seth Wood, so that the principal money was church money. The scheme is administered by seven trustees, three of whom are ex officio. One of

them is the rector of Aspenden and the two others are his church wardens. Lastly, the money may only be expended in the parish of Aspenden. In that case it certainly has an ecclesiastical flavour, and should be continued, we say, as a church foundation.
The second scheme is the Esdras Bland Foundation, which was originally provided under the will of the rector of Buckland, and is clearly church money. The Cathcart and Yarborough Educational Foundation is money left by the rector of Tewin and administered only by the rectors of Tewin and Dixwall, with no other trustees, and is expended only in the parish of Tewin. These are three reasons why this is church money and the foundations certainly have a denominational flavour. The Cross Street Prize Fund was provided out of money obtained by selling a church school in St. Albans. Clearly this again is church money. The Merriton Educational Foundation is again money left by the rector. It has eight trustees, four of them being ex officio—the rector, church wardens and overseer of the poor in the parish. There are four non-official trustees, all whom must live in the parish. The rector is chairman of every meeting he attends and has the casting vote. Clearly the church has control of that scheme.
I will not weary the House with all the details of the other foundations, but the House may be assured that the cases we have put down have been chosen for these reasons: the money originated with the church, is clearly administered principally by the church and should therefore not be included in a secular foundation such as this one but in the church foundation which is to follow.
There is a further point to be made in this connection. The original scheme, when put forward in draft, contained four more foundations, which the Minister had already agreed to exclude. I have studied these four, and they do not fulfil the Minister's own rules any better than the nine or 10 against which we are praying tonight. For instance, there is the Baker Foundation at Bayford, with precisely the same terms as those I have already described; the Robert Curling Foundation at Hitchin, where the only connection with the Church is that it could be used for giving gifts at Christmas to children for good behaviour, and lastly


Peacocke's foundation at Ayot St. Peter, providing slippers for children in school and with apparatus for drying their boots. The only connection with the Church that I can find is that cleanliness is Godliness, not next to it.
The second point is that the Minister, on the Second Reading of the 1948 Bill, said that he wanted powers under the Act to say that endowments which had ceased to serve any effective purpose by reason of the 1944 Act might be put to good use. He was at that time challenged by, I think, my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead) as to whether he really intended by those words to exclude trusts which are still spendable in useful functions. Again, I want to see whether the money is spendable on useful objects outside the scope of any of the current Education Acts. Again, in alphabetical order, the Aspenden Educational Foundation provides clothing, apprenticeship and maintenance; the Esdras Bland Foundation provides for apprenticeships—apprenticeships follow through many of the schemes—the Cathcart and Yarborough Educational Foundation in otherwise promoting education, including social and physical training of boys and girls; the Cross Street Prize Fund provides prizes. Others are spent on providing tools for young men setting up in trade, and so on.
I therefore ask the Minister, on these two grounds, to exclude these small foundations and to accept our Prayer. Under Section 23 of the Act he has power to accept further endowments as they become available, and at the same time he can fulfil the undertaking he gave to the House on the Second Reading of the 1948 Act not to take money which is spendable. He would thus leave in the hands of the vicar and the local committee small sums of money which have a great effect locally, and which will not lose their identity as they will under the scheme once they get into the hands of the local education authority. I ask him to accept our Prayer on these friendly terms.

11.25 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: I beg to second the Motion.
As my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. J. Grimston) has said, there are two distinct categories of

schools concerned in this scheme. First, there are the church schools to which my hon. Friend has referred, and which were also the subject of Debate in another place, and, secondly, the grammar schools, in which quite different issues are involved. The majority of the church schools happen to be in my constituency, but, after what my hon. Friend has said, I need only make a passing reference to them, particularly as I believe the principle that where money is left for church purposes it should be used for church purposes is one with which I think the Minister agrees.
Therefore, his argument for the inclusion of these endowments is likely to be that the charities in question are not Church of England endowments at all. But that the schools are certainly Church of England schools there is no doubt and they have been the sole beneficiaries under the various endowments conferred. The hon. Gentleman has a very special responsibility in this matter because he is, so to speak, the judge in his own court and should be scrupulously fair to give every consideration to these schools. I believe his decision is contrary to the spirit of the trusts, and these charities should not be included in the scheme but released to the Church.
I turn to the case of the grammar schools, which is quite different, and in particular to the endowment of the grammar school at Stevenage and the grammar school at Hitchin, both of which are in my constituency. No one objects to the winding up of obsolete, ancient, redundant and unworkable trusts which should quite properly be included in the Minister's scheme, but there is very serious objection to be taken to funds of endowments being taken over which have been left for specific purposes and which can still be employed for those purposes and in fact are still being employed usefully for those purposes at the present time. Indeed, the Minister referred to it in 1948, when he said that he wanted to extend his powers in this matter so that endowments which ceased to serve any effective purpose might be put to good use.
That is really the whole case on which these grammar schools stand. They claim that the endowments are serving a most useful purpose at present. Their case is overwhelming. I would like to


substantiate the argument by taking the case of Stevenage grammar school, where out of the foundation income in the past 10 years they have paid £550 in scholarships and a further £1,400 approximately on items such as library books, musical instruments, a war memorial, upkeep of grounds, sports equipment and a film projector. All those are perfectly reasonable things upon which to spend endowment money.
Hitchin grammar school in the past 10 years disbursed from their endowment the large sum of £4,850 on scholarships as well as £420 for re-equipping their libraries, £100 for tennis courts and £100 for a memorial fund and many other useful items of expenditure of a similar character. I have carefully examined the accounts of these schools over the past 10 years, and I am satisfied, having looked through them, that the money was spent and usefully spent in each case. It seems perfectly proper that money of this sort should be used to provide, first, scholarships to the university and, secondly, that any balance should be devoted to improving the amenities and equipment of the schools concerned. After all, the Hitchin endowment is not an ancient or obsolete charity. The bulk of the money was subscribed as recently as 1889, and it is used for the purposes which the donors had in mind. It was entirely Hitchin money and is of the greatest benefit to the children. There is strong feeling in my constituency about this matter, and I think rightly. We regard it as one of principle; but even apart from principle, there has also been, in the case of Hitchin grammar school, a quite inaccurate assessment by the Minister of the endowment income concerned.
I understand the Minister's proposals in regard to grammar schools are really in the nature of a compromise. What I think the right hon. Gentleman has said, in effect, is, "You have made out a very good case, a virtually unanswerable case, against inclusion in the scheme; therefore, I will not take your whole income, but only a part of it; only 20 per cent., provided you stop kicking up a row locally and working up popular feeling against my scheme." I do not want to use a rude word, but that is a little like blackmail. That is fair comment. The Minister is relying upon no principle in this matter. He is taking money to which

he has no moral right and is trying to avoid a row by taking only part of the income. Hon. Members may call it whatever they like.
In the case of Hitchin Grammar School, he is trying to take more than 20 per cent., whereas with the Stevenage school, out of an endowment income of £250, he is taking £50 a year, from the Hitchin school he is taking £300 out of a yearly income which has often been less than, and at most is, £1,000 a year. Its main income derives from three sources: from real estate which has provided an average of £230 for the last 10 years; from personal estate, which has provided an average of £250 for the last 10 years; and from a charity known as Rand's, the payments from which vary from year to year. If 20 per cent. is to be taken, which I understand is the proportion elsewhere, this is on a basis of Rand's paying at least £700 a year to the grammar school. But the charity is not obliged to pay more than £100 a year. In the years 1941, 1942, and 1943, that was all that it did pay. Information which I have from one of the governors of Rand's Charity is that it will never again pay more than a total of £400 a year, at the very most.
In those circumstances, I submit that it is manifestly unfair to assess the Hitchin grammar school's income on a figure upon which it cannot count, on a figure to which it has no legal claim, and which in future it will not receive. I submit that the Minister's terms work out at best at 30 per cent. for Hitchin, and as far as legal income is concerned, at 50 per cent. Certainly, on any computation it works out at more than 20 per cent. The governors of the school therefore object to the principle involved, and to the unfair proportion which in practice it is proposed to impose in their particular case.
Lastly, I would remind the House, as has been mentioned by my hon. Friend, of this important fact, that Hertford is only a beginning in this matter. The Minister's scheme is a try-out for the whole country. If he succeeds now, there will be similar actions throughout the country. Educational endowments throughout the country will be raided as they are being raided in Hertfordshire today. Therefore, I ask that this scheme should be reconsidered, and that Church


charities, and other charities to which I have alluded, which are actively and usefully carrying out the wishes of their original donors should be exempted from this scheme.

11.34 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Hardman): As stated by the mover of this Prayer, a Motion with a similar object was discussed in another place a week ago. On that occasion the legal position was described in some detail. It will also be remembered that on that occasion the Government urged rejection of the Motion, which was by leave withdrawn, the noble Lord intimating that the subject was to be discussed in this House at a future date.
I must inform the mover of this Prayer and his supporter, and those hon. Members who have put their names to it, that the Government ask the House to reject their Motion for reasons which I will try to make as clear and as simple as possible. I cannot emulate the legal arguments expressed in another place—my only legal training resulted in rather a spurious Cambridge degree—but what I will attempt to do is to put into as simple English as I can command, the point of view of my right hon. Friend.
Personally, I have some interest in some of the clauses which have been mentioned in the speech by the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mr. Fisher), and I can appreciate in some measure the doubts raised locally among members of the local governing bodies. But the position, briefly, is that the great majority of educational charities under the jurisdiction of my right hon. Friend—and there are some 30,000 of them—produce only £10 or £20 a year, or even less; and that is something which, under presentday conditions, serves practically no useful purpose, if any at all.
Generally speaking, the fact that these charities have not been put into schemes under the Endowed Schools Act has not been because of lack of power on the part of the Minister—I would emphasise that—it could have been done at any time from 1869 onwards—but because in the past it was possible to alter the Trusts under the narrower jurisdiction of the Charitable Trusts Acts. The changes made by the 1944 Act made this earlier

procedure impracticable, and for that reason, the Minister sought wider powers for making schemes under the Endowed Schools Act, so that useful outlets might be found for the income of a very large number of educational endowments concerned. These powers are to be found in Section 2 of the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act of 1948. It is recognised by hon. Members on both sides of the House that these trusts which left money, in their original form, for all kinds of very worthy objects, are awards which, in most instances, were revised at a later date.
For instance, the Aspenden Educational Foundation was to "teach children of both sexes of the most indigent parents of the parish; putting forth poor children as apprentices, and clothing the children of Aspenden school," but under the existing trust, as the result of an instrument dated 5th April, 1910, as varied by a scheme dated 15th July, 1930, of the Board of Education, the conditions were changed to assist poor children of the parish to receive higher education. The income from the trust is £56 a year. Then, another trust, known as the Esdras Bland Foundation, which has been called in question by virtue of this Prayer, was founded by will dated 12th October, 1663, for the bringing up and educating of two poor children at Buntingford, the income in this case being £2 a year.
I suggest to the House that already, in most instances, the original reasons for the founding of the trusts have been altered to meet modern conditions; and now, once again, arising from the Act of 1944, we are proposing a series of schemes, of which, as has rightly been said by the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. J. Grimston), this is the first. I deny emphatically that this first scheme, for this particular trust, or for any other of the trusts—there are more than this one—indicates that Hertfordshire is being used as a "guinea pig" or as a pilot project or as an experimental laboratory. I think I shall show in what I have to say that my right hon. Friend has been extremely fair and just in trying to meet objections that come from the Hertfordshire area. There is nothing new or revolutionary in this scheme and to bandy about words like "blackmail" is, I think, to discount a great deal of very sincere work and co-operative effort


which has been made by my right hon. Friend and by those locally concerned.
The scheme which is the subject of this Prayer applies entirely to the County of Hertford. Since the publication of the scheme—and we have had the word "blackmail" added to the two I am now going to mention—such words as "expropriation" and "confiscation" have been bandied about in the locality, and the word "blackmail" has been added in this House tonight. I suggest there is no foundation whatever for the use of these terms. If the situation is understood aright, I hope the word "blackmail," in particular, would be withdrawn.
What the scheme does is to combine a number of educational charities into one charity and to set up a new body of trustees to administer it. The scheme further provides new outlets for the charity income to meet these modern conditions to which I have referred, conditions, I venture to suggest, which are in conformity with trends of thought in the contemporary educational world. Moreover, none of the existing beneficial areas of the charities is necessarily deprived of the benefits in the new foundation. In paragraph 15, "the governors shall in particular have regard to any applications for awards or assistance from persons or educational establishments in the beneficial areas previously served by the Educational Foundations specified in the Schedule hereto." All that is done by the present scheme is to spread the benefits of the foundations included throughout the whole County of Hertford. This means that the parishes and towns which hitherto did not benefit would now have the pleasant experience of sharing—another example of "fair shares." I should have thought from the list of signatures to this Prayer, representing the various areas of the administrative area of Hertford, that they would very much have welcomed fair shares in the area.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: Were the closing words of paragraph 15 in the scheme as originally provided or were they inserted in answer to local objections?

Mr. Hardman: I cannot answer that question accurately at the moment but at least they are to be found in the scheme,

as it has been agreed by both sides. There is no reason at all why there should not be representations, as there have been all along, from the local personalities concerned. It is an example of the justice of the treatment given to these charities by my right hon. Friend that representations from the local trustees and the governing bodies concerned have all along been taken into account.

Mr. J. Grimston: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to mislead the House. He has just said that the scheme has the agreement of the governors of these foundations. Would he make it quite clear that the governors are most aggrieved at this scheme?

Mr. Hardman: I am going to point out that in certain instances agreement has been reached.

Mr. Grimston: Under duress.

Mr. Hardman: Certainly not under duress. I am going to answer the point which my hon. Friend has just made, and I would not attempt to mislead the House. I have tried to study this as a person without any legal training, and to study it fairly and honestly. I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend has dealt with these cases with his usual commonsense and fairness, and I will give examples in a moment where, in fact, there has been local agreement.
The point I want to make first concerns the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin under paragraph 14. These grammar schools since 1921 have been wholly maintained by the Hertfordshire local education authority, and the whole of the endowments of these grammar schools might quite properly have gone to the new Hertfordshire Educational Foundation. It has been pointed out that there has been a compromise. It has not been a compromise under duress. I suggest that it is understandable, as has been pointed out by the seconder of this Motion, that the governors should take the view that they should be allowed to treat the endowments as they thought fit, but under paragraph 14 we have arrived at a compromise coming from both sides, and I suggest that it is a fair and generous one. Now I should like to turn to the 11 educational charities specifically mentioned in the Motion.

Mr. Fisher: The governors of the grammar schools to which I referred objected most strongly. I talked with them in person.

Mr. Hardman: I understand that there has been an agreement to this compromise. There cannot be a compromise under duress.

Mr. Maudling: May I make it clear that the governors were only prepared to accept this compromise because they felt that otherwise they would get even less?

Mr. Hardman: They did in fact then agree. It may not have been an ideal solution from their point of view, but they decided that it was the right and reasonable course for them to take, and they came to an agreement which was a compromise. It may not have been ideal for both sides but at least it was an agreement.

Mr. Ian L. Orr-Ewing: rose—

Mr. Hardman: May I please try to answer the Debate. I have given way three or four times. I am trying to develop a line of argument.
May I turn to the 11 educational charities specifically mentioned in the Motion? Having taken 11 which, as far as I can see, are grouped under no comprehensible principle, why did not the movers go the whole hog and suggest that the Hertfordshire scheme should be abandoned altogether? Omit the 11 charities and the income would drop from £1,500 to £500. Would it not have been better to have come right out and condemned the scheme as a whole?
I see included in the Prayer—and I am now trying to meet the point raised by the hon. Member for St. Albans—the Aspenden Educational Foundation and the Cross Street Prize Fund. The trustees of neither of these charities have objected to the scheme at all so far as we know. Take the Fawbert and Barnard's Educational Foundation at Sawbridgeworth. Here there was a compromise, and the secretary wrote as follows:
I am instructed by the trustees to inform you that they are now prepared to accept the proposed scheme.
—a letter which reached the Department on 28th April this year. The Esdras

Bland Foundation has an income of only £2 a year, for the bringing up and educating of two poor children of the parish of Buckland at Buntingford.

Mr. J. Grimston: Will the Minister mention the apprenticeship scheme?

Mr. Hardman: I have already mentioned it, and I would point out that surely we have very little use now in modern conditions for endowments for apprenticeship purposes.
May I come briefly to the points raised by the hon. Member for St. Albans, and one in particular which was made by Lord Luke in the Debate in another place? It is the crux of the difference of the point of view expressed by the movers, and those of us on this side of the House, namely, the belief that some or all of the 11 named charities have a Church of England denominational flavour. No one has suggested that my right hon. Friend has not got the power to include all 11 of these charities in these schemes, but I must make it plain that he has no intention of including in any such schemes any charities which are at present impressed with Church of England trusts. This scheme is not suitable for any charities whose trusts are legally of a Church of England character.
For instance, there are no Church of England bodies represented on the new governing body of this Hertfordshire trust, and the benefits of the new foundation are not limited to those adhering to the doctrines of the Church of England. We have examined closely the trusts of the charities in question. There is no shred of evidence that the trusts have the slightest Church of England flavour. I do not like that term, but I understand it is the phrase to use. Nearly all the existing trusts of the 11 charities are contained in schemes made by the Board of Education during the past 50 years.
I can appreciate that there may have been some connection in practice between some endowments and a particular Church of England school, but my right hon. Friend, I suggest, has to deal with a question of law, not of sentiment. He is bound by decisions of the High Court, and the High Court has laid down on numerous occasions that mere usage, for howsoever long a period, can in no way alter the trusts legally. For these reasons, I must ask the House to reject the Motion.

11.55 p.m.

Mr. Gilbert Longden: I rise to support the Motion, and I shall not have to detain the House for very long. I want to express my acknowledgment of the concessions granted by the Minister to one of the foundations which happens to be in my constituency, but I want to add my appeal to him to exclude all these educational bodies on whose behalf this appeal is being made, for the two reasons which have been put before the House.
In the first place, it is unthinkable, in my submission, that if any of them are found to be impressed with a Church of England flavour, they could possibly be included in the Hertfordshire scheme because of paragraphs 12 and 19 alone. I was glad to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say that it was not the intention of his right hon. Friend to include any which could be found to be impressed with a Church of England flavour, but I submit that it is not necessary for him to feel bound by, as he put it, the High Court decisions. Surely, he can decide in the spirit of the thing and not by strict law.
In the case of the David White's Foundation at Abbot's Langley, which is the only one of these 11 schools which is in my constituency—and, incidentally, is situated at a place which is renowned as the birthplace of the only English pope—there are five trustees under a scheme made as recently as 1909. Of those five trustees, one must ex officio be the vicar; the other four, on their appointment, must be notified to the vicar. Surely, that is enough to impress this particular foundation with a Church of England flavour, and I ask the Minister to consider that again.
The second reason is that there are still ways in which the original intentions and wishes of the donors can usefully and conscientiously be carried out. In the case of this particular school or foundation, the money—it is only £25 a year—has to be spent on providing
practical or technical instruction, such as handicrafts, gardening, agriculture, dairy work, cooking, laundry work, household management …
and also in providing
tools, seeds, apparatus and materials …
for students. In my submission, all those intentions can more usefully be carried

out if that small sum of money is allowed to rest in the place than if it is thrown into a pool from which the whole of Hertfordshire is supposed to be going to benefit. When he was answering my hon. Friends, the Parliamentary Secretary seemed to think that because these sums were small, it did not matter what became of them. We on this side of the House deplore that very strongly. We do not think—

Mr. Hardman: The point is that provision is made now by the local authorities for all these things which the hon. Member has mentioned, and that the very small sums to which he has referred can be of very little use indeed to individual schools.

Mr. Longden: I believe that they can be more usefully employed in the place in which their original donors intended them to be spent than if they are thrown into the Minister's pool. It is all very well making fair shares for all if one is doing it with other people's money, but this money was bequeathed for a specific purpose. [An HON. MEMBER: "It has changed."] It was changed in 1909, but in my submission the purposes for which it was then changed are still valid. For these reasons, I ask the House to support this Prayer.

12 m.

Mr. Maudling: I want to deal particularly with the question of grammar schools that arises under paragraph 14, because there is in my constituency of Barnet a foundation, the Queen Elizabeth Foundation, which I think is typical of these grammar schools. I must say I am disappointed with the attitude the Minister has taken so far on this point.
May I first clear out of the way this question about agreement, because I think that the hon. Gentleman was confusing agreement with acceptance. They are different things. If the hon. Gentleman were in a lonely street and I stopped him, heavily armed, and demanded his clothes, he would refuse to give them to me. But suppose he said, "Let me keep my trousers and I will give the rest of my clothes up without a struggle," we might come to an arrangement, but that would be acceptance rather than agreement. That is a frivolous example, I know, but the truth is that the school governors, who so far as I know have


accepted this scheme, accepted it because they thought it was the best they could persuade the Minister to agree. I hope to persuade the Minister tonight to agree to something more.
When the Act under which this scheme is made was given a Second Reading, the Minister dealt with Section 2, which is the relevant section, in words which have been quoted already this evening, and I want to refer to them again because they are most important. He said:
Clause 2 … is designed to extend my powers under the Endowed School Acts so that endowments which have ceased to serve any effective purpose, by reason of the passage of the Education Act, 1944, may be put to good use."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1948; Vol. 447, c. 2327.]
I take that to mean that the Minister only intends to touch endowments which no longer serve an effective purpose and which are not being put to good use at the present moment. I hope the Minister stands by his words on that occasion. I assume that remains the whole purpose of this scheme.
From some remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary, it seems that the Government are now going far beyond the original purpose they set out when the Act was passed and are introducing a new principle of sharing the endowments of particular schools over a whole area. Whether or not that is a good thing, it is going far beyond the principle stated by the Minister himself in putting forward the relevant Clause of the Bill in 1948. If the Minister stands by his argument and is concerned only with endowments which have ceased to serve any effective purpose, and if it can be shown that the endowments of these grammar schools still serve an effective purpose, the Minister should not touch them. It seems to me that if the hon. Gentleman studies carefully the use to which these funds are put at the present moment, he will find that they are effectively used.
May I give as an example the Queen Elizabeth Foundation, of which the greater part—£600 a year—goes to the Queen Elizabeth's Boys' School, Barnet? The school was founded in 1573 and has been a school ever since. It has an outstanding athletic and scholastic record. Of the £600 the school annually obtains

from the endowment, £100 must be spent on purposes directly connected with the running of the school and the remainder on other purposes. Last year, every pound of the total income was spent on purposes with which the local education authority agreed but for which they would not, or could not, pay. I should like to give some examples. The greater part of the £100 to be spent on school purposes was spent on equipment for athletics and spraying the school athletic grounds, with the approval of the local education authority, which could pay half of the money but was not prepared to pay the whole sum; so the other half was met out of this endowment. The remainder of the income of the school was spent on grants and scholarships. I will give a few examples of how the money was spent; to enable a boy with a first class degree to do research at Manchester University, the local education authority could not—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Apparently they have not the power to do so—

Mr. Hardman: May I point out that the local education authority have power to do these things and in the examples given they could have used that power. We must not lose sight of the fact that this school and other schools in Section 14 are entirely maintained and run out of taxpayers' and ratepayers' money.

Mr. Maudling: I have checked the point most carefully with the headmaster—

Mr. James Hudson: Does he know?

Mr. Maudling: I think the headmaster knows.

Mr. Messer: It is not an unusual thing for the governors to want the local education authority to do something and if it is not done by the local authority then the endowment is used for that purpose.

Mr. Maudling: That is exactly what I am arguing. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Messer), who is a constituent of mine, for helping me. In all these cases the local education authority either could not or was not prepared to give assistance. Another example was to assist an old boy, recently demobilised, in starting a course in architecture


at London University, with £50. This old boy had some official grants but was dependent on his father for initial expenses; his father died suddenly and could not have gone without the grant. Another example was to assist a boy whose parents' income was small with expenses in being called to the Bar. This payment was £100. I think hon. Members opposite are in favour of calls to the Bar being spread as widely as possible over the community. Is not that an excellent purpose for which the money should be spent? Otherwise he could not have gone to the Bar.

Mr. Hardman: Yes, he could.

Mr. Maudling: That is not my advice.

Mr. Hardman: The local education authorities have power to do this, and of course they do things of this character in many parts of the country.

Mr. Maudling: In this case the authority did not. It may be argued by hon. Members opposite that the only reason the endowments were used for this purpose is that the local education authority is incompetent. If that is the argument, we can argue on that basis. Last year this endowment was spent up to the hilt and more, because there were some reserves, on this type of purpose and in no case was it spent where the local education authority could and would have provided the money themselves. I therefore argue that without any doubt at present this fund is effectively used and put to good use. If it is effectively used and well used, on the Minister's own argument, there is no justification for interfering with it.

12.9 a.m.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: I do not intend to detain the House for more than a few moments, partly as I have already taken a little time earlier on another subject but mainly because I do not want to retread any of the ground already traversed.
The Parliamentary Secretary entrenched himself behind the bulwarks of the law. He said he was not obliged to discuss the principle because he was bound by the law. It is fair to say that he acknowledged that his qualifications to speak were not in that particular very high. He referred to himself as having a

spurious law degree at Cambridge. While I am not enamoured of the law school at Cambridge, or any other form of learning at that particular university, my regard for his talents makes me believe that his degree was not at all spurious. For myself, I am an Oxford lawyer, a common lawyer—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] "Common law" is a term of art. I am not one of those erudite and specialist gentlemen who have their being in Lincoln's Inn. Therefore I tread, like Agag, delicately, on any question of charitable trusts.
I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he has to some extent mis-stated the position. He said that where these funds are legally for purposes of a Church of England character he will not touch them in a scheme such as this; but when they are not legally of a Church of England character, by which I understand him to mean, when they are not impressed with a charitable trust, he argues that he must include them in a scheme such as this.
Surely that is not the case. Surely the case is rather that where they are impressed with a Church of England trust and, therefore, are, as he says, legally of a Church of England character, then he may not insert them into the scheme. Where, though not impressed with a Church of England trust, in the full sense of that term, they have, nevertheless, what one of my hon. Friends has called a Church of England flavour, then it rests with the Minister, as a matter of principle, to decide whether he will include them in a scheme or will exclude them.
At that point we depart from the arid ground of the law and take ourselves to the more congenial territory of argument on principle. If the Parliamentary Secretary agrees with me thus far, the question of principle, I suggest, is this. Where there is a doubt, as there may be, whether a particular fund is, or is not, impressed with a charitable trust, it clearly should have the benefit of the doubt and be excluded from the scheme. Where it is not impressed with a charitable trust, but has a Church of England flavour, equally, in my view, it should be out of the scheme. Then, where neither of these two things apply, but where, nevertheless, there is still useful work for a fund to do, in its own particular locality, it should still stay outside the scheme, because it would not fall within the requirement of the Parliamentary


Secretary's own definition of "purposes changed to suit changing conditions."
In my submission to the House, that question of principle should mainly be decided by this test: whether it is possible to get a reasonable degree of administrative efficiency within the local and traditional framework. That, I suggest, is the test which should be applied in cases where the matter is open for the Minister to decide whether or not to include a particular foundation in the scheme.
Those of us who have put our names to this Motion have shown the sincerity of our purpose, and the practicability of our approach, by not seeking to exclude from the scheme any of those foundations which we consider are no longer serving a useful purpose in changed or changing conditions. So far as the rest are concerned the onus is on the Minister, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) that he does not wholly discharge that onus by saying that between the inception of the scheme and the present time some have agreed to a compromise. Had these trustees thought that they might have got their foundation excluded from the scheme, then, presumably, they would not have agreed to the compromise. If they had thought that the question was still open, they might have withheld their consent.
In the last five years there has been a tendency among some people to think that departmental authority is omnipotent and, it will take more than a few months, to change this mental approach. The agreement on compromise by the Fawbert and Barnard's Educational Foundation—which happens to be in my constituency—does not conclusively settle the question as the Parliamentary Secretary would have us believe, because originally, they protested very strongly against this scheme. If they had thought it possible to be excluded, they might have withheld their consent from agreement.
Hon. Members will agree, I am sure, that it is an advantage, if possible, to retain the local working for local purposes of some, at any rate, of these foundations. The centralised administration will take place some distance away from where these funds are at present

operated, and after five years there need not be anybody on the governing body who is familiar with the trusts as operated under their previous administration. It is not, in my view, always the case that a thing is better merely because it is bigger, or more efficient merely because it has a more imposing façade and has an obviously more "organised" aspect. The local and traditional framework is part and parcel of the heritage of this nation, and should not be sacrificed unless it is proved beyond all doubt that it is in the public interest. That case has not been made tonight.

12.17 a.m.

Mr. Summers: It is quite evident that the subject with which we are dealing tonight has prompted hon. Members to take an interest in it although they may not be from within the confines of Hertfordshire. I took up with it when it became likely that this example, as applied to Hertfordshire, would spread to other counties.

Mr. Speaker: This Motion deals only with Hertfordshire.

Mr. Summers: I said that, Mr. Speaker, only in making a passing reference, because the very satisfactory reply which I had from the Minister when I previously mentioned this matter made me think that we should have had a much more convincing reply than we have had from the Parliamentary Secretary.
I think that the hon. Gentleman has put a very reasonable case in quoting some "useless" trusts put to better purpose under modern control, but he has certainly done a dis-service by the way in which he has dealt with our grappling of the position in Hertfordshire. From the point of view of whether or not there is a Church of England flavour, or whether the purposes of the trust are out-of-date or not, are other matters, but the way in which the Parliamentary Secretary has approached this subject tonight is that we are taking away the rights of the local people in favour of the larger trusts.
The local people are most likely to be those who will do justice to their responsibility, and the Ministry should confine itself to taking up into the centralised position those really useless and obsolete trusts not given to modernisation. If this


is to be extended anywhere else, what has been alluded to this evening will be borne in mind, and one can only hope that there will be a less grasping attitude than that which we have heard of tonight.

12.20 a.m.

Mr. Ian L. Orr-Ewing: I wish that I had not to intervene in this Debate because I am not a Hertfordshire Member. On the other hand, this is the first of all these schemes and I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that it is very important that in the first of a series we should be extremely careful as to how the whole principle is dealt with. I am sure he will agree with that.

Mr. Hardman: indicated assent.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman does. I cannot help feeling that his approach to this, with all respect, has not been quite as fair as it might have been.
Some time ago I was, myself, approached by people who were involved directly in this scheme and by persons who might feel that they were interested in the effect of the proposals made under the scheme. Naturally, I referred their views to the hon. Members for Hertfordshire constituencies, whose constituents may be affected by this, and I said, "Of course, I cannot possibly intervene in such a matter." But, in view of the fact that this has been the first of all such schemes, I was, naturally, very interested. I had hoped, when I came to the House tonight, to listen to the arguments put forward by the Minister, that I would have heard something rather more sympathetic and more understanding, something less legalistic and rather more acting in the spirit than in the letter of the law, which, undoubtedly, he has the right to impose but which I hope he will not impose against the general feeling of the House.
I cannot help feeling that some of the remarks he made hold out prospect of future trouble in this House on all future schemes. I cannot help feeling that when he said that, after all, the matter was very small—he mentioned £2 or £20—and that something could be done, but need not seriously be done by some other body, the hon. Gentleman was not approaching this matter in the kindly spirit which we expect from the Minister. It is all very

well for the Minister of Education to object to that, but those of us who heard the Parliamentary Secretary's answer heard his hon. Friend's statement that the amount was very small and that it could be supplied by some other charity.
That really is not the main issue we have to judge in this House tonight. The main issue is that as the endowment has been made for a specific purpose, should that endowment be taken away so that an opportunity should be given to some other authority which did not exist when the endowment was made? That is a very different matter which has not been met at all, if I may say so with all respect. It is no use saying that the matter is very small and, therefore, that it does not matter whether it is right or wrong. Korea itself is very small, but does it not matter if it is right or wrong? The same principle arises, and it does not matter if a thing is very small or very big. If the issue of the principle that is involved is a matter of importance then it should be dealt with seriously and I am afraid I must, with great regret, say that it has not been dealt with seriously in this House tonight.
I am very sorry—and I say it most sincerely, because I believe it means that every scheme that comes forward in the future will cause trouble—that the approach in such schemes by the Minister is not a kindly or fair approach, or one which should be governed by the spirit we expect to find in the Minister of Education. In most principles I am sure that we do find that spirit. I am sorry I have had to say that. I am not a Hertfordshire Member, but we have to look to the future. All counties in the country are involved in this, it is no use trying to make it a little local matter, because it is not a local matter at all. We are setting a principle tonight which is to be applied to every county in England.

The Minister of Education (Mr. Tomlinson): I think the principle is right.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Exactly, the Minister admits it and agrees that the principle is right. The principle set tonight is one which will have to be applied to every county. We have to treat this matter very seriously. I do not think Hertfordshire is being fairly treated. The issue may be raised in other areas and if it is we shall have to fight it very hard.

12.25 a.m.

Viscountess Davidson: Unfortunately, I had an engagement outside London this evening, and I apologise for the fact that I did not have the opportunity of hearing the Parliamentary Secretary. But as I gather that we were not altogether satisfied with his reply I feel bound to say a few words in this Debate. I am also a Hertfordshire Member, and although, fortunately for me, I have only one very small place in my constituency coming within this scheme, nevertheless I know the strong feeling this matter has aroused.
I do not think the Minister appreciates how strongly people feel when local matters are taken out of their hands. I do not exaggerate when I say that although it may be true that those who have run these foundations have had to agree, they have not agreed voluntarily but because they felt obliged to do so. I can understand that in the case where a foundation is unable to serve, in these changing times, any useful purpose it is right that the Minister should include them in the scheme, but, so long as they can perform efficiently, I do not see why they should be included.

12.28 a.m.

Mr. J. Grimston: It seems to me that in his reply the Parliamentary Secretary has given what the whole of this side of the House considers to be a most unsatisfactory reply. He made extremely heavy weather of a number of criticisms which we had never advanced from this side. For example, he said that we had said the scheme was illegal. We never said that it was illegal. We never said that the Minister has no power to make a scheme of this kind. I went so far as to say that we welcome the principle of it, and that our criticism was directed against three clear points, mainly concerned with interpretations of the Government's own words.
The first is whether or not there is a church flavour in a number of these cases. Certainly the Parliamentary Secretary made no attempt whatever to deal with the case advanced. The second point is whether the scheme fulfils the conditions laid down by the Minister himself on the Second Reading of the 1948 Act—whether money was spendable on other useful objects which were not covered. The Minister said that in these enlightened

days there were objects which were not covered, but he forgot to recite the objects which can be covered in these very cases, and which are outside the powers of the Act. For example, in one particular case, the Sacombe Foundation, a grant of £5 has been made to a young man, an apprentice carpenter, to help buy his tools. That was not otherwise possible.
Then there is the doubtful deal with the grammar schools. Surely it all belongs to the grammar schools or none of it belongs to them. There can be no argument that 80 per cent. should remain and 20 per cent. should be regarded as danegeld to the Hertfordshire authority. Surely there is no argument in that at all. The Minister has been likened to Henry VIII and all sorts of people. I can assure him that we are not thinking like that, but we say that on these three grounds he has come to a wrong conclusion—or else the conclusion is that because a thing is small it must be useless. That, we can assure him, is not so in these cases. The Government have advanced every argument that can be dragged up to support their view, and the attitude of the Government bodes extremely ill for similar foundations in other parts of the country.

12.31 a.m.

Sir Herbert Williams: I am not clear whether this Order is made under Section 1 or Section 2 of the Act of 1948. I do not think anyone could decide that, because if hon. Members look at the Section they will see that it is not clear whether all these trusts are educational trusts in the strict sense of Section 2. My hon. Friend mentioned the grant of tools. That is outside an educational trust, and is therefore clearly outside Section 2, and would come under Section 1. If it comes under Section 1, it has to be done by Order in Council and a draft has to be laid before Parliament. This document we have is not a draft of an Order in Council, and accordingly if it covers any items—and we cannot tell from the titles of the foundations—which are outside strictly educational things, in part this document is ultra vires. We ought to have some explanation of that from the legal point of view.
Paragraph 2 says that
every Act of Parliament, Letters Patent, instrument or trust affecting the foundations specified in sub-clause (I) of Clause I 


is repealed, and the scheme substituted therefor. That is a bit hard. The intentions of all those who gave this money are wiped out. I hope we are going to have a little information on that subject. The Act of 1948 says in Section 2 (3) that any limitation on these schemes is wiped out; in other words, the trustees really have no power left. They have to do as the Minister tells them. So when my hon. Friend referred to blackmail, I do not think he was too far out. The Minister just weighed in with the "cosh" and said "You have to take it or leave it." If the Minister will read the Section, he will see how brutal it is to those people who left money for these purposes, long before we had social justice, or fair shares, and the rest of it.
We ought to have far more information about the nature of some of these foundations, so that we can find out whether this document is ultra vires. I do not know to what extent a court could challenge this Order. Some of these are educational trusts. There is no indication whether the Elizabeth Hailey's Bequest, for example, is purely educational or not. If it is not purely educational, then this document is in fact in part ultra vires. I hope that before we come to a decision on this matter we shall have some explanation with regard to the legal points I have raised.

Question put, and negatived.

COLONIAL STUDENTS (FORESTRY COURSES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Royle.]

12.35 a.m.

Mr. Peter Smithers: The House has listened for some hours before the Adjournment to closely-reasoned and complicated arguments, and I rise now to divert its attention to what at first sight may seem to be a simple matter of men and trees. I believe that the Minister will agree, however, that the problem of the training of colonial students in forestry is by no means a simple matter and that the position at present is far from satisfactory.
I should like to begin by saying a brief introductory word or two about the importance of the supervision of forests in

the Colonial Empire. It must be clearly apparent to everybody that at present the lack of personnel to supervise the forests is resulting in the total loss of a certain amount of virgin forest, and that in this present day and age the loss of the virgin forest is a very serious matter. It means not merely the loss of valuable timber; it means, perhaps, the total loss of certain species of trees and plants which can never be replaced once the virgin forest is destroyed.
Lack of proper supervision also means a failure to make full use of the existing secondary timbers which we require very badly, and which we need to press into service if we are to fulfil the demands of industry. Furthermore, the lack of proper supervision of the colonial forests must mean a loss of productive acreage. There is quite a large acreage in some of our forest Colonies which is intrinsically of poor quality, and unless the existing forests can be maintained the land certainly will not grow or produce anything else, so that the matter, therefore, assumes considerable importance.
There is evidence that the shortage of trained forest staff is a severe one. It is a little difficult to find up-to-date material, because forest reports come out, generally, a year or two in arrear, but I should like to quote from the latest report available for British Guiana, that for 1948. The first paragraph reads:
I regret to have to report that during the whole of 1948 the work of the Department has been paralysed owing to failure to fill staff vacancies. … At such a critical period in the development of our forest resources, this state of affairs has been doubly unfortunate.
Perhaps I may bring the matter a little nearer to the present time by quoting from the news bulletin of the Empire Forest Departments for 1949. In this bulletin we are listening, as it were, to the chief conservators of various Colonies talking intimately to one another about their problems, and in turning over the pages we find, in Colony after Colony, the disastrous results of shortage of staff. Let me quote, for example, from the Gold Coast, which is a great forest Colony:
There was no further improvement in the shortage of technical staff. At the end of the year there were six vacancies.
We go on to read that—
Progress under the 10-year plan was satisfactory, although necessarily limited in some respects by the staff shortage.


Again:
Owing to the shortage of staff no utilisation officer could be appointed and only maintenance work could be undertaken in the research field.
I might go on and multiply instances from other Colonies, which I think would convince everybody that throughout the Colonial Empire serious damage is being done to the interests not only of the colonial peoples but also of the world at large as a result of this lack of personnel trained to administer the forests.
I should like to make clear that in asking for more attention to be given to courses in forestry for colonial students, I am not asking that any sort of pressure should be brought on the students to study something they do not want to study. At the same time I think it is reasonable to point out that large sums of taxpayers' money are being spent in colonial development and welfare grants and it is only reasonable and logical that this advantage should be given to students who wish to take up studies which will conduce to the development and welfare of the Colonial Empire.
The Secretary of State was good enough to give me, in reply to a Question, a table of the figures showing the studies in which these students are at present engaged. It appears that out of the total of nearly 4,000 students, 1,484 hold scholarships financed by Colonial Development and Welfare Funds or by Colonial Government funds, and 2,489 are private students. From the figures it is evident that the Government are already using the means at their disposal to influence the choice of studies which colonial students take up. I think they are right to do so. For example, whereas among private students there are 544 studying law, only 55 hold scholarships for the same purpose. So that it is evident that the studies of colonial students are weighted against the law.
If we turn to forestry students, we see that out of the total of nearly 4,000, only 12 are studying forestry. Surely that must be an extremely unsatisfactory and disturbing figure. The existing facilities for studying forestry by colonial students would appear to be fairly widespread and fairly satisfactory, but I hope the Minister will be able to outline to us, in a logical and concise form, what

these facilities consist of in the different degrees of forestry study. We know that there is the Imperial Forestry Institute at Oxford for highest studies. In ancillary studies there is the Timber Research Station at Princess Risborough. In the Colonial Empire, we have the Ibadan Forest School in Nigeria and a rangers training school at Suyani in the Gold Coast. Students from Fiji and the Pacific generally go to Rotorua Forest School in New Zealand; and we have facilities in South Africa to which we can send students from the African Colonies. New developments are taking place in other Colonies. In Southern Rhodesia a new training scheme is in progress. There thus seems to be considerable facilities for training.
There is one specific question I would like to ask: Why are there no forestry courses at the School of Tropical Agriculture at Trinidad? Trinidad is conveniently placed for taking students from two of our most important forestry Colonies—British Honduras and British Guiana, but I understand that no facilities are available. I hope the Minister will be able to deal with that point.
I submit that from the evidence available to us that there is no doubt whatever about the need for more trained forest personnel to attend to administering the forest laws. Examples of excellent forest codes all round the world are numerous; the examples of these various forest codes being well enforced are not nearly so numerous. It also appears that there are considerable facilities for training. Why is it, therefore, that we have on our records only 12 students studying forestry in this country and a limited number in the lower degrees of forestry in the Empire?
I am told by those who study these matters in the West Indies that there is a general belief amongst West Indian students that if they take up forestry they will not afterwards be able to get a job. If that is true, it must be a very important deterrent factor. I hope the Minister will be able to give the House an assurance that jobs are available in the Colonial service for colonial students who are willing to qualify themselves.
There is no doubt that another deterrent to the study of forestry is the rival attractions of the law and of medicine and what we might call other white collar


occupations. It must be apparent to all of us who approach the problem of the Colonial Empire in a practical spirit today that for the Colonies themselves no study can be more important than that of forestry. People living in the tropics depend, above all, on forest products and a regular water supply, and without proper administration of their forests they cannot have either of those things. So I raise this subject at this late hour in order to ask the Government whether they cannot do something more to encourage the colonial peoples to train themselves to maintain the great heritage of our Empire forests.

12.47 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Cook): I am sure that the House is grateful to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Peter Smithers), in spite of the lateness of the hour, for raising this very important subject. I wish to reply fairly quickly, because the hon. Member has raised a number of points to which I desire to give a full answer. For nearly 30 years there has been an unsurpassed scheme of training for higher appointments in the Colonial Forestry Service. The Imperial Forestry Institute in Oxford was founded in 1924 as a result of a resolution of the Empire Forestry Conference in the previous year, and is now merged with the University Department of Forestry. The Colonial Office and Colonial Governments make substantial contributions towards its finances and the Institute is a centre, not only of training, but of research and is housed in the same building as the Commonwealth Forestry Bureau.
There are two classes of entrants into the Colonial Forest Service. The first comprises men with a degree in forestry who are eligible for appointment as probationary assistant conservators of forests. After about two years in a Colony, they return to this country for a year's advanced forestry training at the Institute. For men who have a degree, preferably in natural science, but not in forestry, there is a scheme whereby they can take a year's course at the Institute before going to a Colony and return after one tour for a year of advanced study. Seven such probationers have taken the first year's course at Oxford since 1946 and, in all, 50 officers returned to Oxford in the four academic years, 1946 to 1949.

The total number recruited for the Forest Service from 1945 to 1950 was 108.
The position in regard to recruitment in this country is satisfactory and no difficulty is foreseen in filling the 25 expected vacancies next year. The higher training in the United Kingdom is open to candidates from the Colonies. Some progress has been made in the appointment of qualified local officers to the higher ranks in the Service. There are now locally domiciled assistant conservators of forests, for example, in Cyprus, Malaya, Jamaica, Nigeria, and North Borneo. The number who can be appointed to these higher grades depends upon the supply of local candidates qualified to embark upon post-graduate training. There are scholarships provided by both Colonial Governments themselves, and by funds made available under the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts. Ample facilities exist in the United Kingdom for taking degrees in forestry. There are courses at Aberdeen, Bangor, Edinburgh, and Oxford. Unfortunately, the response is not great. I think this is rather tragic, and I would like more colonial people to come forward and take these courses, which are extremely important for the development of the timber resources of the Colonies.
Out of 407 scholarships awarded between 1945 and 1949 to natives of the Gold Coast for higher education in the United Kingdom, only two were for forestry. Many more would have been granted had suitable candidates presented themselves. In addition, one scholarship in forestry was awarded in 1949 by the Ashanti Confederacy Council. In the academic years 1946 to 1949, the following scholarships for degree courses in forestry were awarded to a number of colonial territories—Aberdeen, two; Oxford, four; Bangor, one, making a total of seven. There are, in addition, two private students, one from British Guiana and one from British Honduras, and it is expected three new scholarship holders will start courses in 1950. One Malayan officer is to undertake training in Australia.
The following are a few examples of scholarships awarded by Colonial Governments. In Nigeria, forest assistants of special ability are selected for training at University College, Ibadan, which


qualifies them for appointment as assistant conservators on probation. Alternatively, forest assistants of long service who are considered too old for a full degree course are sent for a special course of 12 months at the Imperial Forestry Institute. This course also qualifies for appointment as assistant conservators. In Trinidad, it is proposed to offer three scholarships over the next five years to enable young men to take a degree in forestry leading to appointment as assistant conservators of forests. In the Gold Coast, Government scholarships are available to the University College of the Gold Coast for a degree in botany followed by specialist training in the United Kingdom.
Two new senior service posts of forest assistant have been recently created in the Gold Coast, and a further eight such posts are envisaged in the 10-year development plan. These are expected to attract candidates to forestry as a career. Although it has been shown that adequate facilities exist for training candidates for appointment to senior posts, and that there is generous provision in the way of scholarships, it is unfortunately true that a career in forestry does not make the same appeal to colonial students as a career in other fields, such as medicine or the law.
The nature of a forestry officer's work takes him away from the amenities of town life, and, obviously, he rather resents being taken away from the material advantages of civilisation, if one can use that phrase. The same problem is present, though to a lesser degree, in recruitment to the agricultural service. Generally speaking, conditions of service in the Forest Departments, and the scholarship facilities available, are adequate and attractive. Salary scales and prospects of promotion do not compare unfavourably with other branches of the public service. It is, however, unlikely that there will be a flow of candidates to forestry until such time as there is greater competition for more congenial employment.

On the question of the training of subordinate staff, it will be realised that the senior staff can only do their work adequately and effectively if they are assisted by a sufficient number of trained subordinate staff. In certain cases,

European foresters—sub-professional, as they are known—have reinforced the Forest Departments, and from 1946 to this year, some 28 foresters, trained by the Forestry Commission, have been recruited. In South Africa and Southern Rhodesia, Europeans born in East Africa have received training as foresters. In general, there are two grades of subordinate staff required. There is, first, the junior grade with only elementary education, trained to perform a limited range of duties; and, second, there is what is known as the assistant grade, who have had a secondary school education, are English speaking, and who have a much longer and more thorough training. The training for these groups can be provided on a territorial basis.

In some Colonies, training is given by forestry departments, while in others special schools are provided. We have schools in operation in Uganda, where the forest department conducts a training school for forest rangers. The course lasts two years, and is essentially practical. Theoretical instruction is, however, also given. There are at present 25 learners undergoing training; 18 in their first year, and seven in their second year. The school was closed, for very obvious reasons, between 1940 and 1947, but in the years 1933 to 1939, 69 students successfully passed their course, and in the 1948–1949 session, 11 passed.

In the Gold Coast, there are annual courses for 20 students, of one year's duration, and these are run by departmental schools. The course trains candidates for appointment as forest rangers, and 116 have qualified in this manner, of whom 91 are still in the service of the Forestry Department. There is a school in Northern Rhodesia which, besides providing a training centre for that territory, has taken five African students from Nyasaland and a further five will be taken this year. In Tanganyika, forest rangers' courses are temporarily in abeyance pending the transfer of the rangers' school to the Natural Resources School at Tengeru, but 33 rangers and probationers have been trained in the past. A new school is being set up at Dedza, in Nyasaland, and this will provide facilities for training Africans of forester grade.

Forestry schools capable of training to a higher level exist at Ibadan in Nigeria,


and at Kepong in Malaya. In Nigeria, Africans with Senior Cambridge or equivalent qualifications are selected for one year's training at Ibadan Forestry School on forest assistants' pay. They pass out as forest assistants and the best are chosen for field work. Later, they receive a further year at the forestry school to qualify for forestry assistant, grade 1. There is a heavy training wastage; 50 per cent. is not unknown, as many of the applicants do not fully realise the implications of the forester's life; but the average output of successful students in the last four years is 17.

The Ibadan school has also trained Africans from Sierra Leone; there are no trainees from Sierra Leone at present, but in the past, three have qualified at Ibadan, and are serving as forest supervisors. Of these, one will proceed shortly to Edinburgh University for a forestry degree course, while the other two will return next year to Ibadan for further training. In Malaya, the school trains Malayan officers and also forest guards from North Borneo, a number of whom are sent annually to Kepong. Expenses since the war have been paid from Colonial Development and Welfare funds, and six post-war students have completed their courses; there have been five passes, and one failure. In addition, one forest ranger took the advanced course at Kepong in 1949, and passed with credit.

A school will be in operation next year at Prodromos in Cyprus. Two courses will be run, each lasting a year—one for forest guards, junior, and one for foresters, senior. Pending the establishment of this school, persons wishing to take up forestry are employed in the

Forestry Department temporarily, and after receiving practical training for some years and passing an examination are appointed as forest guards. Promising forest guards or foresters are sent from time to time to the United Kingdom for training at forestry schools and obtain the woodman certificate and forester's diploma or comparable qualification. Eleven officers have been so trained in the past, including one trained forest engineer; two are still in training, and two more are to be sent this autumn. On return to the Colony, these officers will receive promotion in due course as forest rangers or to higher rank. It will be seen that we have a fairly sound and adequate provision for scholarships and training. All we lack are bodies willing to come forward and take the necessary degree courses.

Mr. P. Smithers: The Minister has given the House what I might call a complete "Cook's tour" of the facilities available in the Colonial Empire. Can he say what he will do to publicise the information he has given? I am sure it would be of great interest to the students concerned.

Mr. Cook: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that have tried to give him as complete a picture as possible of what is being done. We think it is a first-rate story, which ought to be told. My Department are anxious to obtain as many students as we can to take the forestry degree courses. We do whatever we can to publicise the facilities available.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Two Minutes past One o'clock a.m.